House of Commons
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
1. What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government on the effects of fuel prices on (a) rural and (b) urban areas in Wales; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Government on a range of issues, including the effects of fuel prices in Wales. The Government are addressing the rising cost of fuel through the abolition of the fuel tax escalator, the introduction of the fair fuel stabiliser and a cut in fuel duty announced at the Budget earlier this year.
Mr Llwyd
I thank the Minister for that response. Will he impress upon the Secretary of State the need to push the Government to introduce a true fuel duty stabiliser that would trigger an annual reduction in the pump price, as the so-called fair fuel stabiliser announced in the March Budget does not go anywhere near far enough? The volatility in petrol prices means businesses cannot budget, as was noted yesterday by the Federation of Small Businesses in its submission for the autumn statement.
Mr Jones
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I must point out to him that the tax measures we have taken have resulted in petrol prices being approximately 6p per litre lower than they would have been had that escalator not been scrapped. Even taking VAT into account, fuel prices are approximately 3p per litre lower than they would have been.
Mr Llwyd
Further to that response, may I ask the Minister about a slightly different matter? What support are the UK Government providing for the use of electric cars? There are hardly any charging points all in Wales. There is not even one per constituency. What is being done to encourage that?
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that although it would be highly desirable to reduce fuel costs, it is impossible to do so while we are running a deficit of £160 billion a year as a result of the past actions of Opposition Members?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
For commuters and businesses in my constituency, high fuel prices are painful enough without the exorbitant cost of the Severn bridge tolls. If price increases follow the normal pattern, tolls will hit almost £6 per car this year. What action is the Secretary of State taking to help my constituents?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment she has made of the level of unemployment in Wales.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment she has made of the level of unemployment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
The latest unemployment figures in Wales are disappointing and show that there is still much for both the UK Government and the Welsh Government to do. We have made it clear that while tackling the deficit remains our top priority, we are committed to creating the right conditions for the private sector to expand and grow in Wales, in order to create much-needed jobs.
Karl Turner
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Labour Welsh Government on the launch of Jobs Growth Wales, which I am told will create 4,000 jobs per year, and will she encourage her Cabinet colleagues to establish a similar scheme in this country, because our constituents are desperate for jobs?
Mrs Gillan
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I would congratulate any Government who tried to reduce unemployment, which blights so many families, particularly in Wales—and never more so than under the last Labour Government. However, I must say to him that the jury will be out until we see the results from that scheme.
Andrew Miller
As the Secretary of State will be aware, in my constituency hundreds of people cross the border both ways for employment. Constituents of mine work in Broughton, and people from Welsh constituencies travel the other way to Vauxhall, Essar and other major employers. Does the Secretary of State agree that there needs to be some joined-up thinking with her colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in order to address the challenge my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has just raised? There is a good scheme in Wales; why not replicate it in England?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman is wrong; this is a new scheme in Wales, being introduced by the Welsh Government. I agree that the £400 million investment in the Airbus factory will secure 6,000 Welsh jobs and many jobs in the supply chain to that factory. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently opened the new North factory, which will secure employment and development in that area for a long time to come.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the inaction of the Labour Government on enterprise zones is a real concern to the business community in Wales?
Mrs Gillan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the fact that we started the enterprise zones in England at a much earlier stage than the Welsh Government, but I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Welsh Government have designated some areas in Wales as enterprise zones. I know, however, from my discussions with business and industry that they are keenly awaiting some more details on the enterprise zones, which have been very slow in coming forward.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the announcement by the BSW Timber sawmill in Newbridge-on-Wye in my constituency that it is about to create another 20 jobs, bringing Christmas cheer to those families who will benefit from that employment?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I know how hard he works in his constituency to secure jobs. I offer my congratulations and hope that the business goes from strength to strength. I think we forget in this day and age when unemployment figures are going in the wrong direction that plenty of companies are creating jobs and plenty of enterprising—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to face the House so that we can all hear her dulcet tones, from which we will greatly benefit? I think she has finished and we are grateful to her.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not realise how out of touch she is? The unemployment figures in Wales are not “disappointing”, they are shocking. We have had a 20% rise in the number of women claiming jobseeker’s allowance since she came to power in May 2010, including an increase of a fifth in the number out of work for more than 12 months. Why, according to her parliamentary answers to me, has her Wales Office business advisory council not yet discussed the plight of jobless women in Wales?
Mrs Gillan
The right hon. Gentleman is right to commiserate with those people who are looking for employment, but I am not going to take any lessons from him—he was part of a Labour Government under whom youth unemployment rose by more than 40% and female unemployment rose by more than 30%.
Mr Hain
What world is she living in? We created a record number of jobs in Wales. There are 10 men on her business advisory council—why does she not appoint at least one woman to it? With the deficit rising and growth stalling, is it not also time that her Government adopted Labour’s five-point plan for growth and jobs in Wales, including a cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%, a tax break for every small firm that takes on extra workers and a £2 billion tax on bankers’ bonuses to create 100,000 new jobs? Unless she acts now, she will condemn tens of thousands of men and women in Wales to misery.
Mrs Gillan
In Wales, there is an acid test of Labour’s policies. The fact is that a Labour Government are in power in Wales and, as the First Minister in Scotland said the other day:
“If Labour has the answer to economic problems and unemployment, why are unemployment and youth unemployment in Wales higher than they are in Scotland? If Labour has the magic solutions, why is it not implementing them in the one place in these islands where it is still in government?”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 17 November 2011; c. 3582.]
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
3. What recent estimate she has made of the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Current levels of youth unemployment in Wales and across the UK are, of course, disappointing. We are determined to tackle that and will announce additional measures as part of phase 2 of the growth review.
Chris Bryant
That is two Ministers now who have used the word “disappointing” about unemployment. Frankly, it is a tragedy and one of the worst things about it is that a previous Conservative Government consigned constituencies such as mine and whole communities like the Rhondda to long-term mass unemployment. They are doing exactly the same now to a generation of young people. Will the Minister suggest one single thing that he personally is doing in his Department to tackle youth unemployment in Wales and in the Rhondda?
Mr Jones
Of course youth unemployment is too high and of course, sadly, that is not a new phenomenon. In the last Parliament, youth unemployment in Wales increased by 73% and we have not heard a word of apology from the hon. Gentleman for that. We recognise the importance of the problem and that is why we have introduced the Work programme, which provides properly targeted support to young jobseekers.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Is not export-led growth one route to addressing youth unemployment? In that regard, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate private sector business in Wales, which since the last election has seen a 31% increase in Welsh exports—double the national average and the largest increase of any part of the United Kingdom?
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What recent discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects in Wales of the rate of inflation.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues on a range of issues affecting Wales. I welcome the latest fall in inflation, which was published by the Office for National Statistics last week.
Chris Evans
On this Government’s watch, average food bills have increased by 5%, putting more pressure on hard-working families. I have listened to the Secretary of State’s responses, but can she give a guarantee that she is really fighting Wales’s corner and fighting for hard-working families in Cabinet?
Mrs Gillan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was a question. There can be absolutely no doubt about whether I always fight Wales’s corner in Cabinet. I thought he would at least be encouraged that the Bank of England has forecast that inflation should fall rapidly over 2012. In the mean time, the Government are taking very strong action to help consumers with high costs. We all want to help households and the Government go to the last degree to do so.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
5. When she next expects to meet representatives of the solar industry in Wales to discuss the feed-in tariff consultation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting representatives from the Welsh solar industry next week along with the shadow Minister for Wales to discuss concerns that businesses have about the feed-in tariff review.
Mr Hanson
The Minister will know that confidence in the solar industry has been considerably damaged by the decision on feed-in tariffs. Will he and the Secretary of State now stand up for Wales and ask the Department of Energy and Climate Change to defer the decision date for implementation of 12 December so that the consultation, which finishes on 23 December, can at least have the views of the solar industry he is meeting next week?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Antur Nantlle community business group in my constituency has well developed plans for a hydroelectric scheme that will benefit the environment as well as provide an income stream for the venture, but it is concerned that any future change in the tariff will undermine the financial basis of the scheme. What can the Wales Office do to ensure that this example of the big society in action is not jeopardised by the Government’s actions?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Government’s feed-in tariff fiasco risks shattering all investor confidence in manufacturing in Wales. What will the Minister do to influence ministerial colleagues to prevent imminent job losses in the Welsh solar industry and ensure that any change to the feed-in tariff is given a long lead-in time and is set at a rate that will encourage investment and not increase unemployment?
Mr Jones
We fully understand the difficulties that companies involved in this sector of the economy face as a consequence, but if things had been left as they were, the feed-in tariff budget would have been eaten up. There is a consultation and I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will participate in it.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
6. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government on the cross-border economic implications of the development of enterprise zones.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and with the First Minister on various issues, including enterprise zones in Wales. It is vital that businesses investing in Wales are given the same or even better competitive advantages as businesses in places just across the border such as Bristol and Merseyside.
Caroline Dinenage
Given that enterprise zones not only create jobs but have a wider geographical impact on the supply chain with regard to the economy, does the Minister share my surprise at the procrastination of the Welsh Government in locating enterprise zones in Wales?
Mrs Gillan
This is becoming a common theme. Although the enterprise zones have been declared by the Welsh Government, we have only a recent letter from the Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science of 22 November to Assembly Members, which says that the Department is currently working hard with colleagues in transport, planning and elsewhere to ensure that its enterprise zone policy can be delivered. We can only hope that it gets a wiggle on and gets those details out to businesses as fast as possible.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Blaenau Gwent, with high unemployment but great potential, includes an enterprise zone. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting developers who propose to build a £200 million race track there. She offered to speak to Ministers from the Treasury and from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about that infrastructure plan and capital allowances. Following those representations, will she meet me to feed back on progress?
Mrs Gillan
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I was pleased to meet him and the business people who are thinking of investing in Blaenau Gwent. There is a lot of work to be done on the project, which is exceedingly ambitious, but as the area has been designated by the Welsh Government as an enterprise zone for the automotive industry, I hope that good progress will be made. If any help can be given, I am always happy to see what I can do, and I will certainly be pleased to feed back to the hon. Gentleman.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that it is almost impossible—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is a considerable hubbub in the Chamber, which is very unfair for Members asking questions and the Ministers answering them. Let us have a bit of order and some self-respect.
John Howell
Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that it is almost impossible to answer the question about cross-border implications, because there are no details other than the location and sectors for the Welsh enterprise zones?
Mrs Gillan
It is increasingly difficult when relying on another Government to implement a policy, but I remain optimistic because I want the message to go out that Wales is open for business. Enterprise zones will give an advantage to businesses going into these areas and create jobs, and there are good forecasts for the number of private sector jobs to be created by 2015, so I walk in hope. I encourage the Welsh Government to do everything that they can, and I stand ready to help them.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The funding available for the Bristol enterprise zone is nearly as much as the entire amount for enterprise zones for the whole of Wales. How can the Secretary of State justify supporting that alongside the tax on trade and investment in Wales that the Severn bridge toll represents? Will she resist this massive investment at the doorway of Wales that would stop inward investment into Wales?
Mrs Gillan
The amount given to the Welsh Government as a consequence of what is being spent on enterprise zones in England is calculated in exactly the same way under our Government as under the previous Government. The Minister in Wales has received £10 million towards enterprise zones, but she also has a budget of nearly £15 billion at her disposal, and she can decide how she spends that. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to encourage her to look at what she can do in those enterprise zones to encourage businesses.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
7. What recent discussions she has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) others on the work of UK Trade and Investment in promoting inward investment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, UK Trade and Investment and others on promoting inward investment in Wales. I have met the new chief executive of UKTI in the last month and yesterday I met the senior investment adviser for Wales as part of continuing discussions better to promote Wales to potential investors.
Mr Walker
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs recently heard from the chief executive of UKTI, but he, like our Committee, is still waiting in hope for his first meeting with the Welsh Minister for Business, Enterprise, Technology and Science. Given that surprising fact, and the fact that the Secretary of State herself has met the Committee and UKTI many times, what advice can she give the Welsh Business Minister on pushing the respect agenda and the interests of Welsh business?
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend knows that I try to give encouragement to the Welsh Labour Minister for Business, rather than giving her advice, but I am pleased that the Welsh Affairs Committee is investigating trade and investment, and I look forward to giving evidence to the Committee next month. I continue to hold a series of meetings to see how we can assist and work with the Welsh Government to improve those figures.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
But is not inward investment always a second best? Brace’s bakery, an indigenous Welsh firm with its headquarters in Crumlin, took over an inward investment company in my constituency that was about to close down. On Monday, Brace’s increased its work force by a third, so will the Secretary of State give her congratulations and support to indigenous Welsh companies, and ensure that the rest of the country enjoys the great merits of Brace’s breads and Welsh cakes?
Mrs Gillan
Now the hon. Gentleman is tempting me; I always like a good Welsh cake. He should know how much I encourage indigenous Welsh companies, not least by my continuous support of the Fast Growth 50, which celebrates indigenous companies and the way they grow the economy, but he must not do down inward investment. In 2010-2011, 38 inward investment projects led to the creation of 2,444 new jobs and safeguarded another 1,100 jobs in Wales. I think that is pretty important and certainly not second best.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
9. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on measures to stimulate economic growth in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, the Welsh Government and other organisations to discuss measures that would help to stimulate economic growth in Wales.
Andrew Selous
Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector in Wales represents far too small a share of the total Welsh economy? What steps is he taking to change that?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I agree with him, and so do the shadow Secretary of State and the Welsh First Minister. The Government’s plan for growth aims to create the most competitive tax system in the G20 and make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. That applies to Wales as much as to the rest of the country.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to incentivise good growth in difficult times is to invest in green jobs and the green economy? What would he say to my constituent Labour Councillor Phil White, ex-Tower colliery, who has put together proposals for investment in 1,500 homes in five of the most deprived areas of Wales using the feed-in tariff scheme by next March? This Government have cut the legs away from under that scheme, so what would the Minister say to my constituent?
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
10. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government on support for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
11. What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government on support for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government to support Welsh businesses.
David Rutley
Given the importance of SMEs in the vital task of job creation in Wales and across the United Kingdom, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses in Wales?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is correct. SMEs are the backbone of the Welsh economy and have long been so. Through our programme of reduction of regulation, we are easing the burden on SMEs and setting up new businesses. It is hoped that that will cause the sector to flourish in Wales.
Stuart Andrew
Does my hon. Friend agree that rises in interest rates would be catastrophic for the prospects of SMEs in Wales, and that maintaining our low interest rates could be at risk if we were to lose our triple A rating, making it more difficult for Wales to maintain its competitive edge when it comes to exports?
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Small businesses in my constituency have written to me this month saying that they are going to lay people off or may face closure because of the Government’s policy on the feed-in tariff for solar. Will the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that he will lobby the Treasury and Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change to ensure that the scheme is maintained to help businesses that are doing the right thing in Wales?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It is estimated that the SME sector accounts for 90% of employment in Wales. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about promoting this vital sector?
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
13. What recent discussions she has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) others on broadcasting in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
I have had recent discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on a range of issues, including broadcasting in Wales. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have also had recent discussions with the BBC Trust, the S4C Authority and independent Welsh television producers on the issue.
Sarah Newton
Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling on the head of the BBC to reconsider his savage cuts to BBC local radio so that people in Wales can continue to enjoy Welsh language broadcasting alongside people in Cornwall enjoying Cornish language broadcasting?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know whether the microphones are playing tricks on us or—more likely—there is just too much noise. I wanted to hear fully what the hon. Lady was saying.
Mrs Gillan
I think I got my hon. Friend’s drift. I congratulate her on being a champion of the Cornish language. Like me, she will want to recognise and congratulate the BBC and S4C on reaching an agreement on the funding governance and accountability of S4C until 2017, thereby securing Welsh language broadcasting in Wales?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Anyone watching the BBC’s excellent sporting coverage this weekend might like to know that the odds on the right hon. Lady remaining Secretary of State have dropped from 8:1 to 2:1. Would she recommend that they have a flutter on that?
Mrs Gillan
I would tell the hon. Gentleman not to bother wasting his money.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 November.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Matthew Thornton from 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal Peter Eustace from 2nd Battalion The Rifles, Lieutenant David Boyce and Lance Corporal Richard Scanlon, both from The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, and Private Thomas Lake from 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment. They were all courageous soldiers held in the highest regard by their comrades. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice and send our condolences to their families and friends.
I am sure that the whole House will also wish to join me in paying tribute to Alan Keen, who sadly died after a courageous battle with cancer. He was a popular constituency MP who served Feltham and Heston for nearly 20 years. Before entering politics, Alan was a scout for Middlesbrough football club and continued to be a great advocate for sport, not least through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary football group, which grew to be one of the largest in the House under his stewardship. We send our deepest sympathies to his wife, Ann, who is a friend to many here, and to his family and all his constituents. He will be missed by Members on both sides of the House.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andrew Bingham
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave soldiers who this week gave their lives in service to our country. All our thoughts should go out to them and their families at this very difficult time. Similarly, I join the tribute paid to the late hon. Member for Feltham and Heston.
The mass strike proposed by the unions for this time next week will cause great upheaval for many of my constituents in High Peak. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is wholly irresponsible for the unions to bring their members out on strike based on such a small number of votes and when negotiations on pensions are still ongoing?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It really is irresponsible, when negotiations are ongoing, to cause strikes that will lead to the closure of most of the classrooms in our country. It is the height of irresponsibility. What is on offer is an extremely reasonable deal: low and middle-income earners getting a larger pension at retirement than they do now; all existing accrued rights being fully protected; and any worker within 10 years of retirement seeing no change in either the age they can retire or the amount they can receive. It is also a tragedy that it is not just the union leaders who do not understand this; the Labour party refuses to condemn these strikes.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Matthew Thornton from 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal Peter Eustace from 2nd Battalion The Rifles, Lieutenant David Boyce and Lance Corporal Richard Scanlon, both of 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, and Private Thomas Lake from 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment. All those men died serving our country with the utmost bravery and courage, and my deepest condolences, and those of the whole House, are with their families and friends.
I also want to pay tribute, as the Prime Minister rightly did, to Alan Keen, the former Member for Feltham and Heston. He was, as the Prime Minister said, somebody who had friends across the House. He was somebody who believed in young people, in opportunities for young people and, most of all, in the power of sport to change people’s lives—and, as I heard at his funeral yesterday, he certainly had an unusual idea for his first date. He took his future wife, Ann, to the Orient, which turned out not to be a Chinese restaurant but to be Leyton Orient, who were playing that day. He was a great and lovely man, and he will be missed by all of us, but most of all by Ann and by his family.
Can the Prime Minister tell us the increase in long-term youth unemployment since he scrapped the future jobs fund in March?
The Prime Minister
Youth unemployment is up since the last election, I accept that; and youth unemployment is unacceptably high in this country, as it is unacceptably high right across Europe. The problem is that youth unemployment in this country has been rising since 2004, and under the previous Labour Government it went up by 40%.
What we have to do to help young people back to work is to improve our school system so that they have proper qualifications; improve our welfare system so that it pays to work; and improve our employment system so that there are proper apprenticeships to help young people. We have 360,000 apprenticeships this year, helping young people to get work.
Edward Miliband
Under 13 years of a Labour Government, youth unemployment never reached 1 million; it has taken the Prime Minister 18 months to get to that tragic figure. Given that he did not answer the question, let me tell the House the reality: since he scrapped the future jobs fund in March, long-term youth unemployment has risen by 77%. Now, can he tell us what has happened to long-term youth unemployment since he introduced his Work programme in June?
The Prime Minister
First, let me just repeat: youth unemployment went up by 40% under a Labour Government. Let me also remind the right hon. Gentleman of something that his brother, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), said last week. He said very clearly that this Government did not
“invent the problem of youth unemployment”.
We should have that sort of candour from this brother.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me very specifically about the future jobs fund and the Work programme. Let me give him the answer. The Work programme is helping 50% more people than the future jobs fund: it will help 120,000 young people this year, where the future jobs fund helped only 80,000. The waiting time for the most needy young people will be half the waiting time under the future jobs fund; under the Work programme, those who are not in education, employment or training will get help—[Interruption.] I would have thought that Opposition Members would want to hear about what we are doing to help young people. They will get help within three months, rather than six, but the absolute key is that, because we are paying by results, the Work programme will actually help those who need the most help, whereas the future jobs fund put a lot of graduates into public sector jobs and was five times more expensive than the alternative. That is why we have scrapped it and replaced it with something better.
Edward Miliband
Classically, lots of bluster but no answer to the question I asked—[Interruption.] Government Members will be interested in the answer that the Prime Minister did not give, because in June, when the Work programme was introduced, 85,000 young people had been unemployed for more than six months; now, there are 133,000—a massive increase since he introduced the Work programme. If he is serious about tackling youth unemployment, he should get those on the highest incomes to help those with no income at all. Why does he not tax the bankers’ bonuses and use the money to create 100,000 jobs for our young people?
The Prime Minister
We have introduced the bank levy, which is going to raise more every year than the right hon. Gentleman’s bonus tax would raise in one year.
We have just heard a new use for the bonus tax—there have been nine already. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the list. He has used his bonus tax for higher tax credits; giving child benefit to those on the highest rates of tax; cutting the deficit; spending on public services; more money for the regional growth fund—that is when he is defending it rather than attacking it; turning empty shops into cultural community centres; and higher capital spending. This is the bank tax that likes to say yes. No wonder the shadow Chancellor has stopped saluting and started crying. [Laughter.]
Edward Miliband
Even for this Prime Minister, to be playing politics with youth unemployment is a complete outrage. He is the one—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. Let me say it again: the Prime Minister will be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition will be heard. Laughing about the denial of a hearing is not to the credit of any hon. or right hon. Member.
Edward Miliband
The truth is, the Prime Minister is the one cutting taxes for the banks year on year in the course of this Parliament. That is the reality. He is creating a lost generation of young people, and he knows it. It is his responsibility; it is happening on his watch.
The Prime Minister said on Monday to the CBI that it was “harder than anyone envisaged” to get the deficit down, but he was warned that his strategy of cutting too far and too fast would not create jobs; he was warned that it would not create growth; and he was warned that he would find it harder to get the deficit down. Is that not exactly what has happened?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of cutting taxes. Let me tell him what we are cutting. We are cutting interest rates, which is giving the economy the best boost. We are cutting corporation tax, and we now have the lowest rates of corporation tax in the G7. We are cutting tax for the low-paid, because we have taken 1 million people out of income tax. We are freezing the council tax, cutting the petrol tax and scrapping Labour’s jobs tax. That is what this Government are doing.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman directly on the issues of growth and debt, because this is absolutely key. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is at it again, I am afraid. All over Europe there is an interest rate storm, with high interest rates in Spain, Italy and even some of the countries at the heart of the eurozone. We must ensure that we keep this country safe with low interest rates. Let me just remind the Leader of the Opposition of this: if interest rates went up by 1% in this country, that would add £1,000 to the typical family mortgage. That is the risk that we would have with Labour’s plans for more spending, more borrowing and more debt.
Edward Miliband
There he goes again; when it goes wrong, it is nothing to do with the Prime Minister. It is his ABC—Anyone But Cameron to blame when things go wrong.
What did the Chancellor say at the time of the Budget last year? He said that his approach would deliver
“a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation and falling unemployment.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.]
Three promises made; three promises broken. The Government’s plan is failing, and that is the truth. Does that not show why at the autumn statement, the Prime Minister should change course?
The Prime Minister
Let me just give the right hon. Gentleman the latest growth figures in Europe. Britain grew at 0.5% in the last quarter, which is the same as the US and Germany, faster than France, faster than Spain, faster than the EU average and faster than the eurozone average. That is the fact. Of course it is a difficult economic environment that we are in, but is there a single other mainstream party anywhere in Europe that thinks the answer to the debt problem is more spending and more borrowing? If he is worried about the level of debt, why is he proposing to add another £100 billion to it? It is the height of irresponsibility, and the reason why people will never trust Labour with the economy again.
Edward Miliband
How out of touch does this Prime Minister sound? Some 1 million young people and their families are worried about finding a job and all he offers is complacency and more of the same. Now we know it: however high youth unemployment goes and however bad it gets, it is a price worth paying to protect his failed plan. I tell him this: unless he changes course next week, 1 million young people will become the symbol of his failed economic plan and an out-of-touch Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks for a change of course. Let me just say to him what the leading economic organisations in our country and, indeed, across the world say about that issue. The IMF says this:
“'Is there a justification for a shift in the policy mix', we think the answer is no.”
Let us listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King:
“There has to be a Plan A”—
[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition says that he would not listen to him; it was Labour who appointed him.
“There has to be a Plan A…this country needs a fiscal consolidation starting from its largest peacetime budget…ever”.
Who was it who gave us that peacetime budget? The Labour party. Let us listen to the CBI, the leading business organisation in this country:
“Priorities for the next 12 months: Stick closely to the existing credible plan”.
That is what the experts say; that is what business says; that is what the Bank of England says. Would you listen to them or would you listen to the people who got us into this mess in the first place?
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Q2. Returning to next week’s public sector strikes— [Interruption.] They don’t like it up 'em, do they? Is the Prime Minister aware that, of the three largest unions, the turnouts in the strike ballot were 32%, 31% and 25% respectively? Does my right hon. Friend agree that any striker has the right to strike if he so wishes, but he should not engage in mass action unless he has the support of the majority of those unions’ membership?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, it is wrong that these strikes are going ahead when negotiations are under way. It is wrong to strike and to close so many classrooms and essential services, but it is being done on the basis of those turnouts. Just one quarter of Unison members voted to strike, and just 23% of those balloted at Unite voted in favour. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Labour Members want to shout me down. We know why they will not condemn the strikes, because we got the figures today on where they get their money from. In the right hon. Gentleman's first year as leader of the party, 86% of Labour’s donations have come from the trade unions—86%! Under the previous Labour leader, it was 56%. That is about the only thing the Leader of the Opposition has improved since the time of Gordon Brown.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Q3. I understand that the Prime Minister is having trouble connecting with women and is seeking advice. Given that female unemployment has increased this year by 20%, that women have been the hardest hit by public sector cuts and the VAT rise, and that they have benefited the least from his tax give-aways, does he not agree that it is time for a plan B which reverses the VAT increase and ensures that benefits increase in line with inflation?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Of course, every family in Britain is facing a difficult time, with rising inflation, tight household budgets and a public sector pay freeze. But let us look at what we are doing in terms of trying to help women. Of the 1 million people we have lifted out of tax at the lowest end, many are women. What we are doing in terms of additional child care is helping women. The extra hours we are giving for two, three and four-year-olds—that is helping women. So I do not accept what she says. This is a difficult economic environment, but the changes we are making to public sector pensions, for instance, mean that low-paid people in the public sector will actually get a better pension, including many women. Because she, like everyone else on the other side, is in the pocket of the unions, they cannot see that or say it.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Q4. Given the Government’s intention to freeze council tax, is the Prime Minister as astounded as I am that Green-run Brighton and Hove council is planning to decline £3 million of council tax grant and is planning instead to raise council tax by 3.5%, so costing local tax payers £4 million?
The Prime Minister
That is a very important point. At a time of difficult household budgets, it is this Government who have cut the petrol tax, and we are freezing the council tax and have made that money available to councils up and down the country. It is a decision for individual councils. If they want the money to go ahead with the council tax freeze, the money is there, but if they reject it, as they plan to in Brighton, that is a huge mistake, because the council will be asking families in Brighton to pay more at a time when it should be on their side.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that he would meet members of the cross-party inquiry into stalking, which I chair. It is indeed welcome news that the Home Office will now be consulting with a view to legislating. Will he confirm that the inquiry’s evidence-based deliberations and conclusions will be fully taken into account in considering future legislation?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is important that we take forward the work that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have done in looking at a proper, separate offence for stalking and recognising that there is a gap in the current law that we should fill, because there are people who are not getting the protection and help from the police that they need.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Q5. There is genuine concern in Crewe about over-development in respect of housing. How can my right hon. Friend ensure that my constituents get a greater say in planning decisions for new housing estates required for our housing shortage?
The Prime Minister
The great strength of the Localism Act is that we are giving local people a much greater say. In many parts of the country, that will be welcomed, because people can see the advantages of development going ahead, and recognise that if they build extra houses they will keep the council tax and that if they attract extra businesses they will keep the business taxes. That will help to end the problem that we have had for so long of communities not seeing any advantage in development taking place. But it should be a matter for them to decide, as in the case of Crewe.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the history of Northern Rock represents a kind of modern-day morality tale or play, in that here we have a decent, mutual and responsible building society, which is then privatised, then over-extends, then goes bust, is then bailed out by the taxpayer, and now, sadly, instead of returning to mutuality, is sold off dirt cheap to one of the brashest companies in England?
The Prime Minister
I was with the right hon. Gentleman for some of the way through his question, but let us look at the decision the Government have taken. First, we are selling a business that was costing the taxpayer money, and getting well over £700 million for that business. The second thing we are doing, which is in the interests of every single person in this House and everyone in this country, is to get another functioning bank and building society on our high street lending money. How many times do all of us go to our constituency surgeries and hear people say, “I can’t get a mortgage”, or small businesses say, “I can’t get a loan”? We need a good, new, healthy lending institution out there, and hon. Members should welcome the fact that it is going to be based in the north-east of England, as Northern Rock was.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Q6. At a time when the Government are taking steps to drive growth in the economy, will the Prime Minister update the House on what measures are being taken to attract high-quality inward investment to enterprise zones such as Warton in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I do think the enterprise zones are going to be a success, because we are basing them, as in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in areas where there is already a successful cluster of businesses. Take, for instance, the enterprise zones at Daresbury science park or at Harwell in Oxfordshire, or the one in Wolverhampton, where Jaguar Land Rover has said that it is going to establish a new plant employing 1,000 people. Enterprise zones are being well applied, they are a good success story, and this Government are right behind them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Q7. The personal damage caused by long-term unemployment can be phenomenal. On average, somebody who is unemployed for more than six months is six times more likely to contract a serious mental health problem. Does the Prime Minister not worry that we will have a generation of young people who will suffer many of the problems of lack of self-esteem and of never having a first job? Would it not make more sense to guarantee every under 24-year-old a job after six months' unemployment, thus paying them to work, not paying them benefits?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the scarring effect of long-term youth unemployment. We are doing two important things to try to help with that. First, we are helping those not in employment, education or training within three months through the Work programme, rather than the six months under the future jobs fund. Secondly, one of the most successful schemes that there has been in recent years is giving people work experience placements. We will produce evidence on that soon. In many cases, it is leading to direct employment opportunities for young people. The Deputy Prime Minister will say more about that later this week, but we are doing everything that we can to help young people into work and to prevent the scarring effects that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
Q8. May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s tribute to Alan Keen? He was our dear friend and colleague on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Everybody who worked with him will miss him greatly. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that one of most disruptive impacts of next week’s strikes will be on mums and dads with children in school? Will he join me in encouraging employers to allow parents to bring their children to work when it is safe to do so?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to her colleague from the Select Committee and to the very good work that he did on that Committee.
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the strikes next week. Frankly, the strikes are going to go ahead and everybody should be very clear about where the responsibility lies: it lies with the union leaders and with the Labour party, which is taking their side and backing the strike. She makes the important point that when it is safe for people to take their children to work, organisations should allow them to do so.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q9. The Prime Minister is probably aware that up to 20,000 individuals across the United Kingdom have lost considerable sums of money, often their pension savings, through the collapse of the Arch Cru investment fund. That fund was advertised and marketed as being cautious, and turned out to be anything but. Will he heed the calls from all parts of the House for the Government to use the powers of section 14 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to institute an immediate inquiry so that this never happens again?
The Prime Minister
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been contacted by constituents who have lost money because of that fund and who are very concerned about what is happening. There has been a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, where the Financial Secretary to the Treasury set out the position and the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority. I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says and see whether we can do more.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Q10. I fully understand that savings have to be made in the defence budget, but I am very concerned by the proposals for significant cuts to the Ministry of Defence police budget and the possible implications for security at the nuclear bases at Faslane and Coulport in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister please look at those proposals carefully?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The defence budget overall is £35 billion and it will continue at pretty much that cash figure throughout this Parliament. It will still be the fourth largest defence budget anywhere in the world. I assure him that there are no current plans to reduce the number of Ministry of Defence police at the Faslane or Coulport naval bases. Those are vital sites, as he knows, but obviously we have to look at all the costs at the Ministry of Defence and ensure that we are getting the safety that we need.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q11. Does the Prime Minister favour the establishment of local authorities that meet only to give out contracts to others and that provide no direct services to the local population?
The Prime Minister
What I support is local authorities that provide good services and keep their council taxes down. I think that the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world has had the advantage of a bit of change and some common-sense conservatism.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Some 1,600 people are employed by Thomas Cook at its headquarters in Peterborough. They are rightly concerned about the media coverage over the last two days of the company’s difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting this great British institution, which has been providing travel to British people for 170 years? People can support the company by booking their holidays through Thomas Cook, safe in the knowledge that it is part of the ATOL scheme, and they will have an excellent holiday to boot.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks up for an iconic and important British business that has given people a lot of pleasure over the years. I have asked the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give me a report on what is happening at Thomas Cook, because it is important to ensure that it is in a good, healthy state.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Q12. Recent research has shown that the NHS achieved the biggest drop in cancer deaths and the most efficient use of resources among 10 leading countries. Will the Prime Minister accept that he did not inherit an NHS in crisis, but one that was rapidly improving? Will he stop using dodgy 10-year-old statistics to justify his wasteful and destructive NHS privatisation?
The Prime Minister
I am a huge supporter and fan of the NHS. There are many things that are truly wonderful about our NHS. We should celebrate that, but under the last Government, the number of managers in the NHS doubled—the number of NHS managers was increasing six times faster than the number of nurses—and NHS productivity was falling. If a Government inherit a situation like that, it makes sense to make some changes. That is why we see, since we have come in, 14,000 fewer non-clinical staff, but more doctors and midwives, and more operations taking place. If the hon. Lady wants something to celebrate in the NHS—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the hon. Lady wants celebrate something in the NHS, mixed-sex wards are down 90% since this Government came to office.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Q13. Is my right hon. Friend aware of research by the TaxPayers Alliance—[Interruption]—that shows that residents of the Maldon district are paying more in motoring taxes and receiving less in direct benefit than anyone else in the entire country? My constituents appreciate that they would be paying even more in motoring taxes under the plans of the previous Labour Government, but does my right hon. Friend accept that, for them and others in rural areas, such taxes are becoming an intolerable burden?
The Prime Minister
I do accept what my hon. Friend says. That is why in the Budget we took the decision not only to get rid of the tax increases on petrol that were coming down the track, but to make a cut in petrol duty. Effectively, that was 6p off a litre of diesel or petrol. It seems to me essential that, at a time of economic difficulty, we demonstrate that we are behind those people who want to work hard and do the right thing, by freezing their council tax, scrapping Labour’s jobs tax and helping them with their motoring expenses. This Government are absolutely committed to doing that. It is all very well Opposition Members shouting about the TaxPayers Alliance, but it does a good job of drawing attention to those things. Also, the difference is that the TaxPayers Alliance does not pay us to put down amendments.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Q14. The whole House will approve of the belated conversion of the Justice Secretary to the office of the chief coroner, but there are many concerns in the House about war memorials. The other week I brought a petition to the Prime Minister, which 3,000 people in Blackpool had signed. Will he now use his office and his weight to persuade the Justice Secretary and his Ministers to look urgently at new protections for war memorials and new penalties for those who attack them?
The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House and the whole country in saying that what has been happening to our war memorials is completely unacceptable. I do not think there is a single answer. It may lie, as he said, in some new punishments and rules, but it also lies in looking at how the scrap metal market is currently regulated.
I hear very clearly what the hon. Gentleman says about the office of the chief coroner. I am delighted that we have been able to put forward an amendment and to accept some of those points. The one thing that we should try to avoid—this is really important, because all of us want to do the right thing for those soldiers and their families who have given so much to our country—is having an endless right of appeal. I do not think that that would be a good idea. I think it would actually damage the interests of families—
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Over the last 30 years, thousands of vulnerable and disadvantaged children in the UK have been supported through projects funded by Children in Need. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Children in Need on raising more than £600 million over the years, and will he pay tribute to my constituents, who came together as a town, raised thousands of pounds and welcomed Pudsey bear home for the first time?
The Prime Minister
I am very glad my hon. Friend managed to get in, and I apologise, Mr Speaker, for almost squeezing him out. It would be a tragedy if we did not have this opportunity to pay tribute to Pudsey and all that Pudsey has achieved over many years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Q15. Last week, I visited Afghanistan through the armed forces parliamentary scheme and had the opportunity to meet the commanding officer in Helmand province. He stated that he needs two things before any British withdrawal in 2014: political help and influence with countries neighbouring Afghanistan to enable it to develop, and sufficient training and adequate equipment for the Afghan army. Can the Prime Minister assure the House today that those requests will be delivered prior to any 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to speak up on this issue and to repeat what he heard in Afghanistan. He is absolutely right that we need to help the neighbouring countries—and, as we speak, my national security adviser and other members of my team are in Pakistan speaking with the Pakistani Government. On the equipment, assistance and training given to the Afghan national army, we now publish a monthly report to the House so that everyone can see the progress that we are making in equipping and training the Afghan national police and army. In spite of all the difficulties in Afghanistan, that is broadly on track.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that those who remain can hear the statement.
Annual Energy Statement
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
It is important that when we discuss feed-in tariffs later today we understand the impact of our policies, and that is why we have brought forward the annual energy statement—so that the House can discuss the matter in its proper context during the debate later.
I am today publishing alongside the annual energy statement a consultation document on secondary legislation to provide for the green deal. It is important that we get this consultation under way as soon as possible because it will allow an expectant industry to begin planning for this vital energy saving policy.
The statement on our energy policy fulfils a commitment in the coalition agreement, and in describing the progress made and the policies under way, the statement also honours one of the coalition’s principles: our commitment to open and transparent government.
The consumer is at the heart of everything we do. Our decisions must ensure that the consumer is protected as far as possible from rising prices, and so we will secure our energy at the lowest cost. We will do so in the short term by promoting competition, in the medium term by insulating our homes and in the long term by steering us away from excessive reliance on fossil fuels and on to clean, green and secure energy.
The ultimate goals of the Department of Energy and Climate Change are to deliver clean energy for the future and to tackle dangerous climate change. Our vision is of a thriving and globally competitive low-carbon economy with cleaner energy, more efficient homes and lower bills. Over the past 12 months, we have taken significant steps to achieve just that. On both supply and demand, we have begun to deliver key coalition commitments, starting with energy efficiency.
Energy saving is now an equal priority with energy production. An economy that wastes energy cannot thrive in a high-demand, low-emissions world. Improving energy efficiency will save money and cut carbon, which is why we are creating a new energy efficiency deployment office within the Department. Our first task is to make our homes and businesses less leaky and wasteful. The Energy Act 2011, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, provides for the green deal—the pioneering programme under which businesses will install energy saving measures in our homes and recoup the costs over decades from the energy savings.
I am today launching the consultation on the secondary legislation that will allow green deals to begin next autumn, including the energy company obligation, which will support those who need the most help. Improving our buildings is vital but we must also change how we warm them in the first place. We are determined to help consumers heat their homes and businesses securely and affordably, and we will publish a heat strategy next year.
We are also making it easier for people to save energy. In March, we set out the strategy and timetable for introducing smart meters, which can help consumers to manage their energy use. Furthermore, we continue to push for ambitious EU vehicle emissions standards, and are providing £300 million in consumer incentives for ultra-low emissions vehicles and further support for research and development.
We are also working to secure Britain’s energy supplies. We need significant new investment in power plants and infrastructure to meet future demand. In July, we published the White Paper on electricity market reform, heralding the biggest change to the market since privatisation. We are also introducing a new system of long-term contracts, to remove uncertainty and attract investment, and a new mechanism for back-up electricity generation, to keep the lights on. We are setting new standards on emissions from power stations, to ensure that they are clean, and the Treasury is supporting low-carbon generation with a floor price for carbon, to help encourage low-carbon investment in the UK. Together, the reforms will deliver secure, affordable electricity from a diverse mix of sources, including renewables, new nuclear and fossil fuels, including carbon capture and storage.
Each of those energy sources will be important. They will work together in concert to deliver a reliable energy system, and over the past year we have introduced a range of policies to support them. We have published the first ever renewables road map, setting out the barriers to deployment and what must be done to deploy renewable energy at scale. We have also published a consultation on the right level of subsidy to support jobs, investment and growth. Professor Weightman’s report into nuclear safety after Fukushima reassures me that nuclear can be an important and safe part of the energy mix without public subsidy. In October, as part of our work to enable new nuclear build, I published the regulatory justifications for two reactor designs. Fossil fuels will remain important. That is why we are firmly committed to carbon capture and storage, with £1 billion still available for projects in the CCS programme, despite the disappointment of the Longannet project. Promising projects have been proposed, and we are developing a streamlined selection process, which we will set out shortly. Gas will continue to feature strongly in our energy mix, and our policies are designed to allow new gas plant to be built. I welcome Ofgem’s proposals to sharpen incentives for reliable gas supply.
We may need further measures to ensure that we are ready for low-probability, high-impact events. I am asking Ofgem to report to us by next spring on any such measures. We are improving the technical foundation of our energy security. Earlier this month, we laid the statutory security of supply report before Parliament, which sets out future supply and demand forecasts, and discusses risks and drivers. We are also making it easier for new nationally significant energy projects to be delivered. In July, this House approved the national policy statements for energy infrastructure, against which major energy projects will be assessed. Developers can now have greater certainty about how applications for consent will be considered and absolute certainty on when decisions will be made, with statutory time scales to ensure investor confidence.
Our actions will maintain the diversity and security of our energy supplies. We are working hard to ensure that they are delivered at the lowest possible cost. In a world of volatile fossil fuel prices—we all know about the events in the middle east and Libya—those objectives complement each other. We believe that the policies we have introduced will deliver the best value for consumers, as we move towards a cleaner energy future. However, as we embark on the transformation of our energy system, we must take people with us. That is why I am today publishing an assessment of prices and bills, and the impact of our policies.
Overall, we anticipate that rising world gas prices will push up bills for both gas and electricity, but our policies will moderate that rise. By 2020, we expect household bills to be 7%—or £94—lower than they would otherwise be without our policies. Moreover, bills will be lower during this Parliament. Britain’s homes will be cheaper to heat and to light than if we did nothing, in this Parliament and in the longer term. Those savings will result above all from our energy-saving policies and from market reform. In addition, we decided to fund the renewable heat incentive and carbon capture and storage commitments from general taxation, rather than from planned levies.
To sum up again, rising global fossil fuel prices and decades of under-investment will mean that prices for energy will rise in the UK, just as they will elsewhere. We cannot control global gas prices, but we can, as a Government, soften the blow. Prices and bills are forecast to rise, but we can ensure that they rise less than they would otherwise have done.
We want to leave a fairer energy legacy than those before us did. Between 2001 and 2009, fuel poverty doubled. The warm home discount and the affordable warmth part of the ECO, on which we are consulting, are targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable households. The warm home discount will support up to 2 million homes each year, helping more than 600,000 poorer pensioners, with £120 off their energy bills this winter. Other vulnerable people will also be eligible for a rebate. That discount scheme is worth two thirds more than the voluntary scheme that operated under the last Government. The Warm Front programme helped 130,000 households last year, providing advice and installing heating and insulation, with a further 90,000 set to benefit over the next two years. As it phases out, the affordable warmth part of the ECO subsidies will phase in to replace it.
We are also helping consumers more generally to take advantage of a competitive energy market. Consumers could save up to £200 by shopping around for the lowest online rate, but last year fewer than one in five households switched suppliers. We are making it easier and faster to switch, and we have launched a campaign to encourage consumers to check, switch and insulate to save.
We are also mindful of the impact on businesses. Earlier this year we published our proposals on the simplification of the CRC—carbon reduction commitment—energy efficiency scheme and for the new climate change agreements. We are committed to simplifying the regulatory burden on industry, while driving behaviour change to improve efficiency and reduce emissions.
Lower levels of energy efficiency savings mean that our policies will typically have a larger impact on energy bills for businesses. By 2020, policies are estimated to add 19% to the average energy bill of businesses that are medium-sized energy consumers. For large energy-intensive users, who are more exposed to fossil fuel price volatility, that figure is between 2% and 20%. It is important that these industries play their part in the transition to a low-carbon economy, but it is also important that they remain competitive. That is why we are working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury to announce measures before the end of the year to support those energy-intensive industries whose competitiveness is most at risk.
The energy sector is a vital part of our economy. Energy industries employ 173,000 people, contribute nearly 4% of our gross domestic product and provide more than half of our industrial investment. More than 51,000 companies in Britain provide low-carbon and environmental goods and services. Exports are now £11.3 billion a year—up 3.9%. Last year, nearly 4,500 new jobs were created in the sector, which grew by 4.3%.
We expect that our policies, like the renewable heat incentive, will strengthen supply chains across the country, bringing jobs and growth. The green deal alone will kick-start at least £14 billion of investment in the decade to 2022 and support at least 65,000 insulation and construction jobs by 2015. We want to ensure that young people today can play their part in the industries of tomorrow, so we are supporting green apprenticeships to build the skilled work force we need to deliver the green deal.
In conclusion, between now and 2030, our relationship with energy will change fundamentally. We have to build a new energy portfolio—one that is equal to our changing needs and our ambitious carbon targets. It has to be supported by a new consensus. Helping consumers to understand their energy costs, and how our policies affect them, is key. The decisions we take now will affect the way our energy is delivered for decades to come. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the Secretary of State, who has significantly exceeded his time. I gently remind him of the merits of the use of the blue pencil. So far as today is concerned, I must obviously make an allowance in respect of the response from the shadow Secretary of State.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for briefing the media about his statement today, before informing either the House or the Opposition. Is it any surprise that he is becoming increasingly rattled by growing opposition from his own Benches to the Government’s cuts in the solar power sector, and has chosen to bring his statement forward in order to squeeze time in our Opposition day debate this afternoon? Perhaps he is also trying to put a gloss on the Government’s energy policy before the energy statistics are published tomorrow—or perhaps advisers or lobbyists with “excellent contacts” with Ministers advised him to bring his statement forward. Whatever the reason, disrespect has been shown to the House today.
The Secretary of State said, “The consumer is at the heart of everything we do.” Will he start by telling us what the Government will actually do to deal with soaring energy prices? Energy bills are up by 20% this year, and standard tariffs rose by £175 between June and November alone, driving up inflation and squeezing household budgets. The Government, however, are so out of touch that their only answer is to tell people to shop around, and their only policy is to cut help to pensioners this winter. Can the Secretary of State explain why, with the end of the Warm Front scheme, for the first time since the 1970s a British Government are not offering grants to help to reduce fuel poverty?
The most effective and sustainable way of cutting bills is to reduce energy use, but the Government’s flagship energy efficiency programme, the green deal, has been delayed and is in chaos. We were expecting the green deal consultation back in September. More than two months later, it has finally appeared, but we are still not clear about what incentives households will be offered to take up the green deal, or what the Government will do to ensure that the 10p rate for a green deal package is low enough to secure the widest possible range of energy efficiency measures and the best deal for bill payers. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s forecast of the number of jobs to be created by the green deal has been slashed from 100,000 to just 65,000 by 2015?
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out bold plans to break the dominance of the big six by requiring energy companies to sell power into a pool, thus allowing new suppliers to enter the market, increasing competition, and driving up choice for consumers. Will the Secretary of State explain why he is so afraid of standing up to vested interests in the energy industry, and delivering the reform that our energy market needs?
The green economy currently employs 800,000 people. It is estimated that the global market for low-carbon goods and services will be worth £4 trillion by 2015, with the potential to create 400,000 new jobs, but as a direct result of the uncertainty that the Government have created, the UK is falling behind. Last year, when we left office, it was ranked third in the world for investment in green growth. We are now ranked 13th, behind Brazil and India. That is bad for our economy, bad for our energy security, and bad for the prices that consumers pay, because it makes us ever more reliant on events overseas that are beyond our control.
Just yesterday, the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Lords accused the Government of complacency over the skills required for the nuclear industry. Given that power stations in the UK already import staff from the southern hemisphere to run them, given that many of the firms currently providing solar power are about to go to the wall, and given that British Gas has just announced that 850 jobs are to go, will the Secretary of State tell the House how he plans to halt the worrying decline in investment in the UK?
We look forward to the Government’s forthcoming announcements on how they propose to support energy-intensive industries, and we hope that their proposals will extend to both gas and electricity, but will the Secretary of State tell us exactly how much of the proceeds of CRC are going back into Treasury coffers? Under Labour's scheme, the money was returned to the hands of businesses to be invested in energy efficiency.
We shall have time to deal with the Government’s cuts in feed-in tariffs later this afternoon, but what sort of message does this whole debacle send out? How can the Government encourage investors to support the renewable heat incentive, the green deal or any other green policies in the future, when a growing sector, built on a flagship policy that had cross-party support, has been cut off at the knees with just six weeks’ notice? How can anyone have enough confidence to make the investment that we need when the Government are so short-sighted and so short-term, and chop and change their policies at every turn?
Today’s statement is just more evidence that the Government are out of touch, are cutting too far and too fast, and have no plans for jobs and growth.
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Lady asked what we were doing to help those who face substantial increases in energy bills. Over the last year there has been a 38% increase in world gas prices for delivery this winter, and that will inevitably be reflected in both gas and electricity bills. We have tried to protect consumers by taking the renewable heat incentive off the levy system and into general public expenditure, and by taking similar action in relation to carbon capture and storage. We have capped the feed-in tariff, and we are helping the consumer as much as we possibly can.
Far from our being afraid to take on the big six, Ofgem has clamped down on mis-selling, and we have ensured that the big six must inform people before raising tariffs. We have reduced the period within which consumers can switch suppliers to three weeks, and we are considering giving Ofgem powers to require companies to provide redress. All those steps constitute clear evidence of the determination of the Government and Ofgem to make this a highly competitive retail and wholesale market, which is the best guarantee for consumers that they will be given the best possible deal now and in the future.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Warm Front scheme. She gave us no credit for the fact that the consultation documents on the green deal that were published today clearly show that we are replacing that scheme with the affordable warmth obligation referred to in the ECO consultation, or for the fact that the warm homes discount scheme is now statutory—it is not a voluntary scheme like that operated by the Labour Government—and will make the discounts available to those experiencing fuel poverty two thirds higher than those provided by the old voluntary scheme.
The right hon. Lady asked about incentives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have made it clearer in his Budget speech that he would consider them. I believe that if the right hon. Lady waits for a matter of weeks, all will be made clear in regard to the Chancellor’s commitment to ensuring that the green deal is a great success. She should also bear in mind that we have already provided incentives, in addition to those that the Chancellor is considering. For example, all F and G-rated homes in the private rented sector will have to be upgraded by 2018 so that tenants can enjoy the benefits of energy saving.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked what we were doing to encourage investment. The whole purpose of the electricity market reform which will be the centrepiece of the energy Bill that we will present in the second Session in May, and which we have already announced in the White Paper, is to provide the certainty that will lead to investment which, for years, the last Labour Government failed to deliver. A quarter of our power stations are going offline in the next 10 years: a quarter of our capacity. What did the last Labour Government do? Nothing—absolutely nothing. Yet the right hon. Lady, seemingly arriving from Mars, has had the temerity to come here today and pretend that we are not taking action, as if the last Labour Government had. I have to hand it to her: for sheer brass neck, she gets the prize.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is notable interest in the statement, but I remind the House that today is an Opposition day, and that there are two well-subscribed debates to follow. I want the first of them to begin before too long. Brevity is essential from Members—led, I feel sure, by Mr Peter Lilley.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made the breathtaking claim that he intended to keep energy prices as low as possible. How does he square that with the Stern review, on which his policy to combat climate change is based, and which makes it clear that that policy can work only if energy prices are raised to include the external cost of global heating, and if the cost of hydrocarbon-based energy is also raised to make it more expensive than other forms of sustainable energy? In short, if his policy is not hurting, it is not working.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. If he is in any way unsatisfied with the explanations that we have given in the documents—explanations which are considerably more detailed than those provided by any previous Government—he should ask for a briefing, and we will ensure that he receives any additional answers that he may require.
The key point, however, is that a substantial part of what we need to do to tackle climate change involves measures included in our green deal legislation which pay for themselves and do not involve a cost, while those that do involve a cost—namely the raising of prices to enable us to move to a low-carbon economy when it comes to electricity generation—are offset by the reduction in energy volumes precisely because of our energy-saving measures.
I commend the document to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will find is persuasive.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
If the last Labour Government did nothing about energy policy, I cannot think why I was so busy all the time.
To raise the tone of this discussion, I welcome what the Secretary of State said about long-term contracts, and I would like to hear more. On carbon capture and storage, the Secretary of State knows that despite all the excitement about feed-in tariffs, renewables and nuclear, the world, including the United Kingdom, will mainly be using fossil fuels for the next few decades. What is happening in respect of CCS? There have been some disappointments in recent months. When does the Secretary of State think the first CCS plant in the UK will be operating and helping to clean up our planet?
Chris Huhne
I certainly did not want to imply that the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable expertise in this area, was in any way slacking when he was an Energy Minister—although I think he might have had better support from his colleagues on certain occasions.
CCS is a key technology. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we are going to continue to be reliant on gas and other fossil fuels. If we move to unabated gas rather than coal, that in itself will save about half the carbon emissions. For the longer term however, CCS is essential if we are going to be able to use gas, especially if we find, as I hope we will, that we have considerable exploitable reserves of shale gas under Lancashire and elsewhere.
As I have said, Longannet was a disappointment—I made a statement to the House on that—but other projects are coming forward. Peterhead is nearer the reservoirs than Longannet, so the pipeline costs are likely to be lower, and less investment will be needed to upgrade the plant in line with the large combustion plant directive. All the parties who were involved in the Longannet negotiation are confident that we can deliver a commercial-scale CCS plant for within that £1 billion budget, and we intend to do so.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
The Secretary of State highlighted the future role of gas in the economy, and producing our own gas is obviously the best option. To that end, will he stress to the European Union that its attempt to regulate the offshore oil and gas industry is in danger of creating regulatory confusion and more uncertainty, and that it would be far better to go down the directive route?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right. If we are going to introduce minimum standards for offshore oil and gas—the Commission has been kind enough to say they should be modelled on those for the UK continental shelf—that should be on the basis of a directive, so that we can use our own legal means to enforce the standards, rather than a regulation. A regulation that would apply directly in all the member states would be inappropriate because countries’ circumstances are inevitably different.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In spite of the warm words about the importance of tackling fuel poverty, next year will be the first year in three decades when there has not been a Treasury-funded scheme to do precisely that. Instead, we have a regressive scheme that will fund the energy company obligation through a levy on fuel bills. As the ECO will be split into two pots—the hard to treat and the fuel poor—will the Secretary of State ensure that the latter group does not end up in effect subsidising the former, by making sure he focuses on the fuel poor, the 1.9 million households in fuel poverty who happen to live in hard-to-treat homes?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Lady will know that I am passionately committed to helping the fuel poor. That is why we have increased the amount of warm home discount compared with the voluntary schemes. I disagree with her that the ECO subsidy is an ineffective way of reaching such people or that it is more regressive than other schemes. The fact that the previous scheme was Exchequer-funded was by the bye. What is important is achieving the key outcome of tackling the root causes of fuel poverty, and that we will do.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I understand that France has persuaded the European Commission to accept nuclear power as a renewable. Will the Secretary of State negotiate a similar deal for this country, and will he also make sure that the information on our energy bills is transparently clear, so we know how much of what we pay is subsidy for renewable energy?
Chris Huhne
I can do better than that, because the document published today contains precisely that information on the impacts on prices and bills. We want to be as transparent as possible, because it is important that people understand that although there will be price increases, we can, particularly as a result of our energy saving measures, also get volumes down, which is crucial to getting bills down. There is no point in our having unsubsidised energy and merely heating the atmosphere; we want to heat our homes, not merely push the heat out of leaky and draughty homes into the atmosphere.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I heard the Secretary of State’s comments about the potential of the Peterhead CCS project, and I would welcome investment there. However, is it not true that the Longannet project was much more important to the country because it is a coal-powered station, as opposed to the gas-powered station at Peterhead, and coal is the main export market for CCS? Is it not also the case that Shell and Scottish Power have got their sums right, and that their assessment of the investment required for the CCS power we need is much more realistic than the Government’s? We have thrown away the great potential of a large export market.
Chris Huhne
CCS is a catch-all for a substantial number of different types of technology designed to do the same thing: take the carbon out of the process of the combustion of fossil fuels. I disagree about gas versus coal, as I think gas, along with coal, will play a very important part in world supply for a long time, and there will be substantial CCS markets in both of them. It is important that the UK is in the lead in that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Government support the three recommendations of the billing stakeholder group, which I chaired at the Government’s behest, but there is strong evidence that one of those key recommendations is being ignored by the energy suppliers: the requirement that they contact each of their customers informing them on whether they are on the company’s cheapest standard direct-debit tariff. What are the Government going to do to put this right?
Chris Huhne
First, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts in this area. We raised this point with the big six at the consumer energy summit, and my understanding is that they are in the process of notifying their customers. Perhaps not all those letters have gone out yet, but one of the commitments was that customers were going to be notified when there was a cheaper tariff they could move to online.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
In what was a lengthy statement, the Secretary of State made no mention of either the long-standing problem of transmission charging, which affects green energy, or Ofgem’s Project TransmiT. What progress is being made, and will he finally take action to tackle this problem?
Chris Huhne
I have had continued discussions with Ofgem and, indeed, with the First Minister of Scotland. He and I think absolutely alike on the importance of moving to a regime that does not penalise energy sources for being further away from the market, precisely because renewable sources will inevitably be located where the renewables are. Also, nuclear is generally not welcome in the middle of our cities. For those reasons transmission charging should be amended. Ofgem is looking at that at present, but it is up to it to do so as an independent regulator.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The majority of consumers seek to shop around when their tariff rises, only then to run the danger that their new tariff will rise even further only days later. What measures are being considered to protect consumers on new tariffs for either six or 12 months?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is right. Consumers have the option to choose a fixed rate of course, which will be for a specified period. At the time of the recent consumer energy summit, we made the key point that the big six, which supply 99% of our households, had announced their tariff changes and that some of them had committed to keeping them all the way through the winter. Right now is therefore a rather good time to compare prices and switch to the cheapest tariff.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I understand that it is important to get money into the Treasury, but is that more important than people’s lives? The Hills report found that thousands of people will die as a result of this Government’s policies. What is more important: money to the Exchequer or people’s lives?
Chris Huhne
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not giving credit where it is due, although I cannot say that it is terribly surprising. I commissioned John Hills to produce that report precisely because I wanted a really good and authoritative review of how we can best tackle fuel poverty. I am determined that we shall do that. One conclusion of the interim report from Professor Hills was that there are 25,000 excess winter deaths and that perhaps 10% of them—a similar figure to those killed on the roads—are due to fuel poverty. We are determined to tackle that issue—[Interruption.] That is after 13 years of Labour government; let us please have a little cross-party consensus on trying to tackle the problem while recognising that it needs to be dealt with in the long run and that we have the means to tackle it at source as well as in the short-term through the warm home discount.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that in the last year of the previous Government, less than 3% of our energy came from renewables and we were 25th out of 27 in the EU. By what extent does he expect to improve on that by the end of this Parliament?
Chris Huhne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are determined to be the fastest-improving pupil in the class. At the moment, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the inheritance from the previous Government puts us firmly in the dunces corner on renewables, but we are working our way out.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware of the situation at Rio Tinto Alcan in my constituency, where 650 jobs are likely to be lost as a result of green taxes and high energy costs. What assurances can he give the work force at Rio Tinto Alcan that the package of measures that have been promised and promised again for energy intensive industries will be sufficient to keep the plant in operation and maintain the jobs, plus 3,000 jobs in the supply chain?
Chris Huhne
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which I have shared. I met the executives from Rio Tinto Alcan who deal with that plant and I put to them a simple question: if we were able to provide support for electricity generation through, for example, conversion to biomass, would they guarantee that they would keep the plant open? They did not give me an answer and one executive is quoted as saying that the 40-year-old plant was beyond Government subsidy. I do not think that, and I very much hope that we can work on finding a solution, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the energy intensive package is under serious and urgent consideration. It is on course to be announced by the end of the year, which is what we were committed to doing, and it is also a matter of regret to me that the announcement was made about the Rio Tinto Alcan plant before the managers had the opportunity to read what we were able to say, which suggests to me that they had previously made up their mind.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Of course, energy bill payers contribute a few quid towards the support of renewables, but the big six help themselves to £150 per annum per household. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is a reasonable balance, and how can we achieve a reasonable balance?
Chris Huhne
The key in any market is to ensure that it is properly competitive. I am absolutely in favour of shareholders, particularly since they are usually our pension funds and our insurance companies, making the best possible return in a competitive market. That is why we are stressing the key competitiveness requirements of the wholesale market and the retail market. When we get that right, we will have the assurance that the rates of return in the marketplace for the big six and, I hope, for the new entrants to the market will be fair, precisely because they have been earned fair and square in a competitive market.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State referred to the green deal in his statement. What is he doing to ensure that VAT on products used in the green deal is set at the same level as for the energy it is designed to save—that is, at 5% and not 20%?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are substantial anomalies—and not just that one—in the VAT regime. It is not always possible, because of the commitments in the EU legislation, for member states to make unilateral changes to that regime but he certainly makes a sensible point and I am sure that the powers that be at the Treasury will listen carefully to it.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns of those who have “prepared their homes”, to use his words, and fitted solar panels about the pace of the reduction in feed-in tariffs, especially when they see the onshore wind industry being rewarded for inefficiency and destroying the UK countryside?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. We have cut the subsidies for the offshore and onshore wind industry, too, and we have done so because this Government are firmly committed to making sure that we deliver what we intend to deliver—that is, the shift to a low-carbon economy—at the lowest possible cost to British consumers. I am sure that we will have a greater opportunity to debate this subject later today, but I merely point out that the subsidies for solar feed-in tariffs now reflect a substantial fall in the costs of the underlying technology. That fall in costs, caused by the global changes in circumstances over the past year, means that those subsidies are providing a very similar real rate of return to that which was planned when the scheme was launched in April 2010.
Mr Speaker
Order. If it is possible to find a one sentence question and a relatively pithy reply—I do not wish to be too ambitious—that would be a considerable achievement. I look to one of the wise heads of the House and call Dr William McCrea.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
During the winter months, the poorest members of our society will face soaring electricity bills and many in Northern Ireland have no alternative to heating oil. What action will the Secretary of State take to make home heating oil affordable to the most vulnerable in our society?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of home heating oil because, as he knows, last winter that issue caused us a lot of concern. We referred the matter to the Office of Fair Trading and I was surprised with its conclusion but we must accept that it followed a full investigation. The longer-run solution will be to ensure that people are less reliant on the heat from heating oil through energy insulation and the green deal. We are determined that those who are off the gas grid will be able to take every opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the green deal, too.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Small solar panel companies about which I have written to the Secretary of State’s Department are having a particularly hard experience following the change in the tariff. They will lose jobs over it and they are asking whether the domestic 4 kW rate can be considered as a taper for a longer period so that they can recover from the shock of the quick cut in the tariff rate when they cannot deliver as quickly as the big boys.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. This is a consultation and a genuine one. We have made serious proposals and we are waiting for the responses. We will take those responses into account when we come to make decisions.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Energy companies often cite investment in generating power as the reason for the price rises. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the amount of money made on the price rises compared with the companies’ investment in generating power?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. The need for new investment is clearly factored into the price projections in the documentation. It is not just about the rise in the overall world price in gas that is driving what is happening to our bills but the need to build a quarter of the capacity that is coming offline. That is factored into the calculations.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at how other countries, particularly Germany, support their high intensity manufacturing users of energy to keep bills down and jobs in the country?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend will know that my esteemed colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), was there in September. We have done considerable work to look at the experience of other countries, which is a theme that we might come back to in the debate on the solar feed-in tariff. This Government do not believe that it is sensible to sit in a room and try to develop things from scratch and a priori if other countries have already done so and we can learn the lessons from them.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
How can the policy change on the tariff possibly be a consultation when it is already set to change on 6 December? My constituent, Keith Bonner, wanted to install solar panels and he tells me that the £12,000 investment is no longer viable because of the change in policy. How does the change in policy fit with the requirements set out in the Secretary of State’s statement of increasing renewable energy, tackling climate change and reducing emissions?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman should know that there will not be a change in tariff before April. The key point is that the old tariff is applicable to any scheme that is installed either before or after 12 December, but any scheme that is installed after 12 December will have a lower tariff from April. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate this later today and I am sure he will want to contribute to that debate.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend encourage Ofgem to deal with the tariff anomaly whereby household energy bills fall when households use more energy? Surely, that places a burden on single and less well-off households and flies in the face of our desire to encourage greater energy efficiency in households.
Chris Huhne
There are many anomalies that Ofgem is looking at in this area. A key part of that will involve looking at any unfairness in the system and making sure particularly that we simplify tariffs. There are far too many tariffs and that is confusing for consumers. If we can get a dramatic simplification, that will make the market work much more effectively. Currently, only 15% of consumers switch, whereas with car insurance about half do so through online sites. We need to get up to that figure and we will then find that the market works much more effectively.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Constituents have informed me not only that they are angry about the drop in the tariff and the potential loss of jobs in my area—these are people who have invested in the solar energy industry—but that the arbitrary deadline of 12 December means that there has been a rush for installation of solar energy in people’s homes, which is producing a sharp increase in the price of the components in panels. Does this not show that the Secretary of State has thought very little about the impact of this policy on the energy industry?
Chris Huhne
I disagree with the hon. Lady. When a policy is clearly going off the rails, it is important to grip it as quickly as possible. The problem with the industry was that it was massively exceeding its budget. If we had not acted, we would have been adding anything between £26 and £55 to the average household bill by the end of this Parliament, which would simply have been too much. We have had to take account of the cost to the consumer and I very much regret that the Opposition do not seem to remember that.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Twelve months ago today, after last year’s statement, I put forward a proposal about topping up card meters online, as I have them at home. I have gas and electricity from British Gas, and I am pleased to report to the House that that has happened with British Gas. Hon. Members can take it from me that electricity is far cheaper than gas, and I urge the Secretary of State to take that into consideration. Is not now the time to put more money into nuclear power and push that industry forward for jobs and in my constituency?
Chris Huhne
Nuclear is one of the three key pillars on the supply side, with the fourth pillar being energy saving. Those are the key parts of our policy. We have been meeting all our deadlines except those that arose immediately after the Fukushima disaster when I thought it was important to ask Dr Weightman to come up with a report that answered people’s concerns about making sure that the same thing could not happen here. With that one exception, we have been meeting our deadlines and we are on course for new nuclear without public subsidy.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State has referred to the carbon floor price and the carbon reduction commitment simplification proposals, both of which give rise to concerns in Northern Ireland that they will have a perverse impact given our market and geographical realities. Those impacts would be counter to the very policy goals that he has enunciated. Is he receptive to those concerns and will he and his colleagues be responsive?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting issues. We are in constant touch with the Northern Ireland Executive and others on these matters and of course we are receptive to concerns and to amending anything that would have a perverse effect of the type he describes.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who speaks for the Opposition, made the serious charge that the Minister had briefed journalists before coming to the House. In answering her question, it slipped his mind to answer that point. Can he tell us that that did not take place and confirm it by publishing and putting in the Library a copy of the media grid showing which journalists were spoken to before the statement?
Chris Huhne
I assure my hon. Friend that I did not speak to any journalist before making this statement. As far as I am concerned, it is an important principle that the House should be told first.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
The Secretary of State has set out the future energy supply and demand forecasts within the security of supply report. Is he confident that if those forecasts prove to be inaccurate, we will be able to keep the lights on in this country?
Chris Huhne
Because of the disappointing economic situation, the margin of capacity has been rising. I am confident that we can do that, but we should not be complacent. We need to keep the matter under review and we are certainly doing that, but I am confident that we can keep the lights on.
Points of Order
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a point about the scheduling of this annual energy statement on an Opposition day when we have two extremely important debates with very short time limits for speakers. The statement was not a time-sensitive one and I hope that you will agree with me and deplore the fact that it was scheduled in Opposition time. Secondly, the timing of the statement was tweeted to the world by The Guardian environment correspondent at 9.37 this morning, 32 minutes before Opposition Front Benchers were informed that there would be a statement. Thirdly, the contents of the statement were extensively leaked to the same tweeting Guardian correspondent and appeared on its website at 10.35 this morning. Mr Speaker, I seek your rulings on these issues, which show grave discourtesy to the House.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I shall seek to the best of my ability to respond to each of her three points in turn. First, the timing of Government statements is a matter for the Government and I do not want to get into the merits or demerits of choosing a particular day, but the point will have been heard by the Deputy Leader of the House and, at a distance from the Chamber, by the Leader of the House. Secondly, let me emphasise that notification of an intended statement should first and foremost be to other hon. and right hon. Members and the shadow team. It should not be to members of the press. That is disorderly and discourteous. Thirdly, I listened intently to the Secretary of State, as I always do, when he responded to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). He assured the House that he had not spoken to journalists about the contents of the statement, and of course I accept without hesitation what he says on that point. However, I would just gently—or perhaps not so gently—remind the Secretary of State that it is not just a question of Ministers not talking to the media. Ministers must not encourage, facilitate or permit any of their team, officials or advisers to do so either. This is the second time this week that there has been an instance of substantial information in a statement being conveyed first to the media. It will be a pity if further measures have to be contemplated and adopted for dealing with situations of this kind. I hope that the Secretary of State will take what I have said as a deterrent against any future such occurrence.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 November the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House regarding the Government’s latest offer to unions on the public sector pensions issue. In the statement and in the document he published, he included examples of the pensions that public sector workers would obtain under his proposal. Later that day, the Prime Minister told the House—he has repeated this today—that on that basis, low and middle earners would get more from their pensions. The Cabinet Office subsequently published on its website a pension calculator on which people could check what pension they would receive under the Chief Secretary’s latest announced offer. As was revealed on “Channel 4 News” last night, the calculator demonstrated that the Chief Secretary’s original examples were simply wrong, and that his statement and the Prime Minister’s comments were simply incorrect. The calculator showed that low and middle earners would get less at comparable retirement rates. The calculator has since been taken down from the website.
Three million public sector workers may go on strike on 30 November unless the dispute is resolved, so it is vital that accurate information be provided to the House and to the general public. The Chief Secretary has unwittingly conveyed inaccurate information to the House and, through you, Mr Speaker, I would ask that he be requested to return to the House to correct the error and provide an accurate assessment of the Government’s pension proposals.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for his point of order and for providing advance notice of it. All hon. and right hon. Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the content and accuracy of the statements that they make. If a mistake has been made, a Minister should correct it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is an exceptionally clever chap, will understand if I am reluctant to trespass beyond that, because the detail and minutiae of these matters are probably well beyond my limited competence.
Mr Speaker
I am in a generous mood, so I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to do so.
John McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I simply want to disagree with you regarding the phrase “an exceptionally clever chap”.
Mr Speaker
Well, he is certainly a modest fellow, although not with much to be modest about. We will not discuss that any further, but what I would say is that disputes about the impact of the Government’s most recent offer on pension levels are an appropriate matter for debate, and arguments over calculations and hypothetical examples are not tantamount to any deliberate misleading of the House. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—not an old—hand who has put his concerns forcefully on the record.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received an approach from the Health Secretary to say that he may have misled the House yesterday in Health questions when answering a question from me about the risk register for his NHS reorganisation? He told the House:
“I have been very clear and published all…risk information relating to the modernisation of the NHS”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 149.]
He has made the same argument to the Information Commissioner who, in a legal decision, said that
“he does not accept the argument and considers that disclosure would go somewhat further in helping the public to better understand the risks associated with the modernisation of the NHS than any information that has previously been published.”
Will you advise the House, Mr Speaker, on how we can correct the record and get to the truth about the risks that the Government’s policies on NHS reorganisation pose to our NHS?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but there is not much that I can offer by way of encouragement or comfort. He is an experienced Member of Parliament, and he has put his interpretation of those matters on the record. I said a moment ago that the contents of answers are a matter for Ministers, but answers to parliamentary questions are not themselves covered by the statutory provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. If he thinks either that the Minister has erred or that I have erred in my exegesis of his point of order—or, indeed, both—no doubt he will return to these matters and will require no encouragement from me to do so.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful if you could advise me how I can put on the record the fact that following the Deputy Prime Minister’s reply to me on 15 November, recorded at column 679 of Hansard, in questions on changes to the law on the succession to the throne, the right hon. Gentleman helpfully wrote to me to clarify that he was in fact referring to his conversation with the Scottish First Minister, not the Northern Ireland First Minister. He further advised me—again, very helpfully—that he has placed a copy of his letter in the Library. I am grateful to his office and to other Ministries for the way in which the matter has been handled.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman wanted to put that matter on the record, and he has done so with his customary courtesy. If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule Bill, which the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has been waiting patiently to introduce.
Members of Parliament (Change of Political Party Affiliation)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any Member of Parliament who changes voluntarily his or her political party affiliation described on the ballot paper at the time he or she was elected is deemed to have vacated his or her seat; and for connected purposes.
This Bill seeks to ensure that any Member who decides to change parties—in other words, crosses the Floor or “defects”, should trigger an automatic by-election so that their constituents can have the final say on their decision. I realise that some Members may have hesitations about such a Bill. It would, after all, seek to overturn centuries of tradition that have allowed Members to change parties with little regard for their constituents’ opinion on the matter.
At the same time, the question of Members changing parties is not a new one. Former and current Members from all political parties have taken the decision to do so, including a former Prime Minister. Equally, former Members from every political party have previously called for a defecting MP to give their constituents the right to validate their decision. Let me be clear: I do not take issue with the right of Members to defect from parties. In an established democracy, we must value the freedom of individual Members to cross the Floor if they so wish. I can fully accept and understand that Members may, at times, no longer find themselves at one with the party they joined. I ask only that they give their constituents the same choice that they themselves have been able to make.
Nor do I wish to criticise any Member or former Member for the action they have taken, or the judgments they have made according to their own conscience. They will have to live with them. However, it is neither right nor fair that a constituent should live with that decision, often for many years, until a general election is called. According to the House of Commons Library there has never been a debate in the House on this issue. At a time when the public’s faith in our political system is at a low ebb, and when trust in politics remains broken, I believe that this is precisely the kind of topic that we should be debating.
If we asked any man or woman on the street the solution would be obvious: if an MP is elected for a certain party, only to decide to defect to another, it is only right that they should allow their constituents a say on their decision. That is the honest thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. It is easy to state the historical arguments against this Bill, mostly stemming from Edmund Burke’s speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774. Burke argued that we are sent here as representatives, not delegates, and as such sit in the House as individuals, not bound by party constraint, but each free to choose how we best represent our constituents, even if that seems to be against their best interests.
The notion that constituents vote for their Members of Parliament as individuals to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents, and not to stand for the party ticket on which they were elected, may have been relevant in the 18th century, but that is no longer the case in the 21st century. We can no longer continue the charade that we are each elected solely as individuals. To do so is simply not to be speaking the same language as our constituents. It is an undeniable truth that the vast majority of constituents will vote for the party, with the Member the embodiment of the party locally.
Parties clearly do matter, otherwise there would be no need for a Member to change from one party to another. Such a Member may as well sit as an independent. Indeed, let those who wish to maintain the illusion, and believe that we are elected as sole individuals, stand as individuals, devoid of a party banner.
There are precedents in this House for a political defection to trigger a by-election. Bruce Douglas-Mann voluntarily triggered one in 1982, in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, when he left Labour for the Social Democratic party. He followed in footsteps of Dick Taverne, who in 1973 resigned from the Labour party, only to call a by-election and be re-elected under the banner of Democratic Labour. By-elections like these should be the rule, not the exception.
Nor would the Bill be the first to legislate on a Member of Parliament’s defection. Defection laws have been passed in India, providing that someone can be disqualified for voluntarily giving up
“membership of his original political party”.
Of 193 countries worldwide, 41 have laws about crossing the Floor. Indeed, in Canada, a Bill almost identical to my own was debated only this month.
I do not deny that this change in the law would raise other issues that would need to be investigated fully, but I would welcome the scrutiny that the House could provide by debating the merits and demerits of the Bill. For instance, the reason why I suggest that the Bill should apply only to Members who have voluntarily changed parties is to ensure that the withdrawal of the Whip would not affect a Member’s ability to remain as a representative. It is not the Bill’s intention to strengthen the party system, or to strengthen the control of any parliamentary party. It is intended only to strengthen the hand of our constituents. Loyalty to our constituents lies at the forefront of what we all, whichever political party we stand for, wish to achieve as Members of Parliament.
Edmund Burke once stated that he was a Member of Parliament, not the Member for Bristol. As a proud Bristolian, I am the Member for Kingswood first and a Member of Parliament second. We have a choice: we can stand by the arguments first formulated more than 200 years ago, noble though they are, or we can choose to face forwards, into the 21st century, and accept that we cannot go on as we have done. We must accept that the status quo cannot remain, and that we must seek to form a new relationship with our voters, our constituents—the men and women who put us here in the first place.
The central issue must be one of trust. At a time when the public want politicians to be more accountable, if a Member of this House decides to defect, it should lie with the voters and the constituents whether that Member should remain a Member of Parliament or not. We need to look beyond the confines of this Chamber, and ask ourselves what is so wrong with a Member who defects from one party to another asking their constituents’ opinion. What should any defecting MP be so afraid of? Who are we to turn our backs on our constituents—the voters who placed us here—without their assent? Without them we are nothing.
I end by paraphrasing the words of that other Bristol MP, Edmund Burke: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his honesty, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices that to his ambition.”
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Edwina Currie had the bright idea of having equal numbers of men and women in the House by pairing constituencies and saying that the man who got the most votes and the woman who got the most votes each became a Member of Parliament. I asked her what would happen if someone went in for gender reassignment between one election and another, and she thought I was not being sufficiently serious.
When I first started taking an interest in politics, I do not think we had party labels on the ballot paper. I think it would not be a bad thing if we removed them and showed only candidates’ names and addresses. Incidentally, I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) would suggest that if I changed my address between one election and another I should have a by-election, because that was on the ballot paper as well.
I do not think many of us would get elected without parties, but the key point is that we have a duty to our constituents and to our party, and we have international obligations as well. In my view the trust comes from what we do, not from whether we decide to change our party. We are at present in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats include people who were Social Democrats. The Social Democrats, in the main, unless they were political virgins, came from the Labour party, so there has been significant moving around.
We could approach this matter from the point of view of narrow self-interest. Do we as the Conservatives, or we as the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, expect to get more people from the Labour party to come and join us, or do we expect to lose more people? If we expect to gain more people, which is what I hope we are going to do, we should not support the Bill. We should say, “Come across and perhaps we’ll see if we can look after you at the next election as well. It may mean changing your seat, as one or two Conservatives who switched to Labour did, but we can have a go.”
Then we come to Burke. Edmund Burke is quoted far too often. He bears the penalty of fighting his great campaign against Warren Hastings for five years, tying up Westminster Hall and stopping the visitors having a good look round. But we forget that having made his declaration of the duties of a Member of Parliament, at the next election he lost his seat. Losing the seat at the election is what such a Member should take the chance of doing.
We have had voluntary by-elections. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) caused a by-election to say that he still agreed with what he had said at the previous election so could he be re-elected, and he was. We had the time when the Ulster Unionists, who do not seem to be present at the moment, had by-elections en masse for some reason that we have now forgotten. We ought to recognise that although my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is absolutely right—there is no better historian in the House now than he—in saying that the matter ought to be debated, the idea that it should be the subject of a Bill that should be enacted is controvertible, and I would say that it is wrong.
The House should not be delayed by too many of the greater arguments, except of course if we wanted to return to the glory days. Was there not a time when if someone elected as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament was invited to become a Minister, a by-election had to be held? It would be a real test of popularity, especially if a reshuffle came, to make it a requirement that any Back Bencher who became a Minister had to fight a by-election, and anyone who stood at a general election as a Minister and succeeded, but then lost their ministerial position, should also be required to fight a by-election. If by-elections are a good idea, let us have more of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Skidmore, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Robert Buckland, Zac Goldsmith, Mr Aidan Burley, Conor Burns, Gavin Williamson, Bob Stewart, John Healey, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Tom Clarke and Steve Brine present the Bill.
Chris Skidmore accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2012 and to be printed (Bill 252).
Opposition Day
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Economic Growth and Employment
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern that UK economic growth is flatlining and was choked off well before the recent Eurozone crisis, that youth unemployment is now more than one million and that Government borrowing is therefore expected to be £46 billion higher than forecast over the Parliament; further notes with regret that the Government has failed to deliver a credible growth plan, is undermining critical industries in which the UK must compete, is failing to use strategically procurement and other tools to drive growth and innovation, and is holding back regional growth with its flagship projects mired in inertia and with most business still waiting for Regional Growth Fund money seven months after the recipients were announced; therefore calls on the Government to deliver a growth plan that provides an immediate boost to the economy to increase demand and growth, including a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and build 25,000 more affordable homes; and further calls on the Government to bring forward long-term investment projects to get people back to work, to reverse the damaging VAT rise of January 2011 for a temporary period giving families a £450 boost and providing immediate help for the UK’s high streets, to provide a one-year cut in VAT to five per cent. on home improvements, repairs and maintenance to help home owners and small businesses, and to provide a one-year national insurance tax break for small firms to help them grow and create jobs.
In his Conservative party conference speech last October, the Chancellor said he would stick to his plan to cut faster than any other Chancellor in our history, regardless of the consequences, because, he said, it was necessary to put our economy on a sound footing. With reference to the Business Secretary he said:
“Together, Vince and I have started to open Britain for business.”
A year later, what do we find? The economy has grown by just 0.5% in the past 12 months. This compares with growth of 1.5% in the US over the same period and is significantly down from the 2.6% growth in the previous 12 months, thanks to the measures taken by the Labour Government. Have the Chancellor and the Business Secretary opened Britain for business? The figures tell a different story. The number of UK enterprises fell by 20,000 in the year to March 2011, with decreases in business numbers in every region except London and Scotland, and business confidence nose-dived following the announcement of the Chancellor’s spending review.
What effect is this having on the people of this country? More than 2.6 million people are out of work, the highest rate in 17 years. More than 1 million young people are now out of work, the highest since comparable records began in 1992. Let me be clear: these are not our statistics. They are those of the Office for National Statistics. They are the facts.
How have the Government responded to the facts? Last week, when we learned of the youth unemployment figures, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were nowhere to be seen. Instead, the Minister with responsibility for employment took to the airwaves. He told us that the 1 million figure for youth unemployment was “a distraction.” The 1 million figure for youth unemployment is not a distraction. It is a disgrace. What a tragic waste of talent. He not only described the figure of 1 million as a distraction, but attempted to blame it on the eurozone crisis. Does he really think that the British people will fall for that?
In fairness to the Business Secretary, when the figures came out his unofficial spokesperson, the noble Lord Oakeshott, told The Guardian:
“It’s ridiculous to blame this rise in unemployment on the crisis in the eurozone. All economists know it’s a lagging indicator, so this is the result of what has been happening in our economy over the past year”.
I could not put it better myself. Despite that view, the Business Secretary remains resolutely wedded to the Government’s economic strategy, however disastrous it is turning out to be. He does so in the name of deficit reduction, yet the independent forecasts published last week show that the Government are projected to borrow, on average, more in each remaining year of this Parliament than we would have done under our more balanced deficit reduction plan. Those are neither the Opposition’s figures, nor those published by the Office for National Statistics; the summary of independent forecasts was published last week by the Government themselves. Of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility has already forecast borrowing to be £46 billion higher than previously thought. The evidence is clear: the Government’s strategy is not working because reducing borrowing requires growth, which they choked off by cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast, and long before the eurozone crisis.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place on the Front Bench, which gives the Opposition the opportunity for a fresh start in putting forward their policies. He noted that according to later assessments the deficit will be higher than originally estimated, but does he accept that the key thing the Government got right was to set the tone for interest rates so that this country’s businesses can benefit from much lower interest rates than those in other countries, and would not the policies that his party proposes put that at risk?
Mr Umunna
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the reason the Monetary Policy Committee has set our interest rates so low is that we are struggling to find growth in this country. Without growth, we will be unable to reduce our borrowing. Our not being in the eurozone is another reason we are able to adopt lower interest rates.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his much-deserved elevation and on his speech, which has been very interesting so far. I put it to him that the Opposition’s plan would have been to borrow about £100 billion more than the Government plan to borrow in the current Parliament, which would lead to higher interest rates and push us closer to the situation Italy and Greece find themselves in and to what is happening in the eurozone, which would be irresponsible and reckless.
Mr Umunna
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my post. First, if he looks at page 22 of the Government’s summary of independent forecasts, he will see that they are projected to borrow, on average, over £100 billion more than the Government thought they would. Secondly, when he returns to his constituency he might wish to explain to his constituents, particularly the young people—youth unemployment there is up by 155% since January this year—why he cannot get his Government to change course.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has shown considerable courtesy already in giving way. Does he accept that the markets set long-term interest rates, whatever the MPC does, and that the problems in countries that have let their fiscal position get out of hand with interest rates have been driven not by a choice given by the European Central Bank, but by the markets setting the prices for their medium and long-term bonds?
Mr Umunna
The market is not irrational, as the Government seem to suggest. The suggestion is that if they move their direction and course by even one millimetre, even if economic circumstances justify such a change, they will be hammered by the market, but that is clearly not the case. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the numerous articles and speeches by the former adviser to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and former chief economist of the Cabinet Office, Mr Jonathan Portes, now director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who makes that very point.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recall, as I do, the Prime Minister telling the House in June of last year that employment would rise in every year of this Parliament, and did he notice in last week’s unemployment figures that employment fell by more than 100,000 in the year after that pledge was made? Is it not absolutely clear that the policy is not working and must now change?
Mr Umunna
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, another question for the Government is why they will not listen to business organisations that have been calling for action. The CBI is calling for infrastructure spending to be brought forward, the Federation of Small Businesses is calling for a one-year national insurance break for every small firm taking on extra workers, and the Federation of Master Builders would like a targeted cut in VAT to 5% for home improvements, maintenance and repairs. Business organisations, from those representing the food and beverage sectors to those representing businesses on our high streets, which are suffering, are calling for a reversal of this year’s hike in VAT. What do all those measures have in common? They are all part of Labour’s plan for growth and jobs. As our motion stated, the Government must take action now to increase demand and growth and give immediate help to the high street—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), chunters from a sedentary position. If he wishes to ignore all the various business organisations, people might put a big question mark over his judgment. It is clear that the Government need to back our plan and that they must do so now.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government have been listening to businesses organisations with regard to employment law and deregulation? I am surprised that he, as a former employment lawyer, has not included in the motion a single proposal to make it easier for small businesses in Britain to take on staff.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
When businesses get in touch to tell me about the problems they are suffering from, none of them tells me about problems with employment law. They tell me about the lack of public procurement and problems with VAT and financing from the banks. Those are the concerns that need to be tackled, rather than the side issues that Government Members are pursuing.
Mr Umunna
I agree with my hon. Friend. We all know what is holding back business in taking on workers: the forecast economic projections for this country. That is the real problem. What has been the centrepiece of the Business Secretary’s alternative offer? How will he turn things around? The answer is the regional growth fund. The aim of the fund is to unlock private sector investment, support areas that are dependent on the public sector and help them become more balanced economies. Good. We take no issue with those objectives. We want that money to get to business and to create the jobs that will support growth, yet the scheme has been managed shambolically. It has been an utter fiasco. The fund is a third of the size of the moneys distributed through the regional development agencies, which have been scrapped without effective replacement, so it has been hugely over-subscribed, which demonstrates businesses’ craving for capital. Of the 956 bids received, only 50 were successful in the first round and 119 in the second round. There have been many more losers than winners. It is difficult for the losers, but what of the winners?
Of course, due diligence is needed to ensure the proper use of public funds. The permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills told the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee that due diligence on successful bids tends to take between two and six weeks, and that until it is complete the successful bidder is not given its money. Yet, clearly, very few successful bidders have received what was promised, because it has taken so long for due diligence to be completed.
I have written to the Secretary of State and tabled parliamentary questions, and in fact the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has continually chuntered from a sedentary position today, provided the answers. I tabled those questions to get the answers, to get the facts and to get to the bottom of the delays and mess.
On Monday I received answers to those parliamentary questions, indicating that 30 weeks—30 weeks—after the original announcement just nine of the 50 first-round winners have completed due diligence. When I asked why due diligence has taken so long, I was told:
“It is for successful bidders to initiate due diligence upon receipt of a conditional offer letter from the Department.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 154W.]
Usually, the Government blame us for all the mistakes; now, it seems that they are seeking to pass on blame to the very businesses that they claim to want to help—and the bidder has to pay for the due diligence cost, too.
As it happens, I met—[Interruption.] Ministers shake their heads—
Mr Umunna
I will in a moment.
Last week I met one of the first-round bidders, who told me that on learning of their successful bid in April they immediately sought to progress due diligence but, despite chasing the Secretary of State’s Department, received no further documentation for four months. When they got it, they immediately responded but, again, heard nothing for another three months—until around the time that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of the regional growth fund at Prime Minister’s questions. I am sure that the timing was totally coincidental.
Even now, formal due diligence is not complete, and the matter is due to go to the permanent secretary’s committee for approval on 2 December.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On that important point, the Institute of Chartered Accountants believes that one reason for the length of time taken on due diligence is the disappearance of the RDAs’ expertise in following up the process, and the efficiency savings within the Department, meaning that the skills base there has evaporated, too. Is that not the case?
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I reiterate the point about the expertise that has been lost due to the abolition of the RDAs. The European regional development fund is another vital source of money for businesses. Millions of pounds, particularly in the north-east, remain unspent, and only one fund, from the regional growth fund in Manchester, has been used as match funding for ERD funding. That is a huge waste of important business support that could be going to people throughout the country.
Mr Umunna
Perhaps the Secretary of State will address that comment in his response.
Almost one year after the regional growth fund was announced, and six months after due diligence should have been completed, the winning bidder to which I have referred has still not received any money from the regional growth fund. It is clear to me, in that case, where the blame lies for the delay: it is not with the successful bidder. That organisation provides onward distribution of fund awards to businesses that desperately need it. As a result of the chaos, confusion and delay, the bidder in that case tells me that between 3,000 and 4,000 businesses are being deprived of the moneys they need, putting an estimated 11,800 jobs at risk.
What about the other bidders that provide the onward distribution of funds, and the businesses that could support jobs and growth? As I have said, the situation is a fiasco. It is no way to run a Department, and it is no way to treat our businesses or grow our economy. The Secretary of State and his Department are not doing enough to get our economy growing; what little they are doing, they are doing badly.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about ERDF delays, one of which I have drawn to the attention of Ministers myself, but, having spent 10 years a councillor in the city of Hull dealing with organisations such as Yorkshire Forward, I must say that the nirvana picture of the RDAs that he tries to paint is certainly not my experience. The points he makes now are exactly the same points that we could have made about Yorkshire Forward and its processes for the past 10 years. The problem is the systems, not, as he outlines, how we structure them.
Mr Umunna
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the question is whether the Department is doing what it promised to do for those businesses, which is to give them money and to carry out due diligence in a quick and timely way. It has failed to do so. I do not claim that there was a nirvana in relation to RDAs, but we are talking about the regional growth fund, and we actually want it to succeed.
The Government’s latest attempt to grow the economy consists of making it easier to fire, not hire, people. Today, to great fanfare, the Secretary of State said that the service required to claim for unfair dismissal should be increased from one to two years. He said this morning that
“this will mean that business can once again have the confidence to hire the staff they need to grow and thrive.”
That is a retrograde step for a Government who think that watering down employees’ rights is a substitute for a proper growth plan.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Even at the height of the Thatcher years, there was no attempt to target individual workers—their unions, yes, because industrial tribunals were a Conservative Government invention, but the measure under discussion is utterly shameless. The efficient European economies are partnership economies, but targeting weaker workers and, particularly, women workers is to the utter and contemptible shame, above all, of a Liberal Democrat Business Secretary.
Mr Umunna
I am glad that my right hon. Friend brings up the Thatcher era, because a well known noble Lord was asked on Sunday whether such initiatives, which seek to make it easier to fire as opposed to hire people, act as a stimulus to job creation. He told the BBC what he thought of that, saying:
“I’ve been responsible for one of those deregulation initiatives for many years and I would be quite frank in telling you that I don’t think we achieved much.”
He went on to say that
“you want to be very careful in political terms that you don’t get the reputation that all you’re trying to do is make life rougher and tougher for large numbers of people.”
Those are the words of the noble Lord Heseltine, and, if a Conservative-led Government are unable to persuade him to buy into the concept, why should the rest of us do so?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about what Lord Heseltine said, and the evidence is that, when we create uncertainty for workers by attacking their rights, we find that their behaviour changes in relation to the economy. They stop spending money in the economy, and that undermines the opportunity for growth and the support for businesses, so any Government Member who thinks that cutting workers’ rights is a way to grow the economy is sadly mistaken.
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend is right, and when the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development looked at the economic effects of the proposal to increase the service requirement from one to two years, the chief economist, Dr John Philpott, said that
“any positive effect on hiring is likely to be offset by a corresponding increase in the rate of dismissals. Increasing the qualifying period for obtaining unfair dismissal rights thus runs the risk of reinforcing a hire and fire culture in UK workplaces. Although the policy change will undoubtedly be welcomed by the de-regulation lobby, it isn’t the way to boost growth and jobs.”
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman is now quoting selectively. Will he tell us what the Federation of Small Businesses, which he quoted earlier, or the chambers of commerce think of that policy?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention, and he should please wait for the answer. We do not need comments from the side.
Mr Umunna
I withdraw that comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether business organisations were in favour of increasing the unfair dismissal service requirement from one to two years. That policy may sound good on the face of it, but what will happen—I say this as a former employment lawyer—is that we will simply end up with more employees making spurious discrimination claims, because there is no service requirement for them. When we put that to businesses, they take quite a different point of view of the policy.
Mr Umunna
I have given way several times, and I want to make a bit of progress.
Instead of reverting to the tired old mantras and doing over the people who work in this country, perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us what he will do to get banks lending to small and medium-sized businesses that are, by his and the Chancellor’s own admission, currently being starved of credit. We know that the Project Merlin accord between the banks and the Government failed. The Secretary of State more or less admitted as much when he said:
“Merlin was necessary but it was never going to be sufficient. I don’t think any of us pretended it was enough.”
We know that the figures published under Merlin are entirely misleading, because under the agreement between the banks and the Government a gross lending measure was adopted, not the more meaningful net figure used by the Bank of England. The truth is that Project Merlin was really no more than a public relations gimmick designed to get the Government out of a hole when banks’ declarations of bonuses were in full flow earlier this year.
For real businesses, the failure is real. The Bank of England’s “Trends in Lending” publication for last month showed the stock of lending to UK businesses contracting overall in the three months to August. The Bank’s latest agents’ summary, for this month, stated that small businesses were still reporting that credit conditions
“remained tight, and in some cases had become tighter.”
That is supported by the figures released this morning by the British Bankers Association, showing lending by the high street banking groups to non-financial businesses contracting this month.
To resolve that problem, the Government first need to change their overall economic strategy, to give businesses the confidence to borrow and grow. The small and medium-sized enterprise finance monitor published last week showed that the main barrier to future borrowing by SMEs was the economic climate, but that the other major barrier was the lending practices of the banks. The Government need to use their influence with the banks, particularly through United Kingdom Financial Investments in the case of the banks in which the state has a stake, to insist that they get money out of the door to responsible businesses that have sound business models but are struggling to access finance. In addition, they must urge those banks to adopt a better lending culture—for example, by ensuring that they have local relationship managers on the ground who get to know the business concerned.
Charlie Elphicke
I am sure the whole House has considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s position. Unfortunately, the Government’s hands are somewhat tied, because UKFI was set up on the basis that it was at arm’s length. When the original deal was done with the banks, the then Government did not force any lending targets on them. This Government have been trying their best to undo that damage through Merlin and other measures, but the previous Government should have got it right in the first place and have made it harder now.
Mr Umunna
When will Government Members take responsibility? I wish that we were still in government, but we have not been for 18 months now. It is about time that they got used to the fact that they are in government and took responsibility.
Business is crying out not for a Government who step aside and fail or refuse to act but for one who adopt an active approach, using all the tools at their disposal to create the conditions for private sector growth. For all their claims about our record, such as the ones that we have just heard, the Government have kept in place some of the support measures for business that we left them on leaving office. I should point out that under Labour, 1.1 million businesses were created. When we left office, the UK was rated fourth by the World Bank for the ease of doing business, and first in Europe. Under this Government, the UK has dropped to seventh in the global rankings. We will take no lectures from the Government on support for business.
In government, we set up the Better Regulation Executive and the Regulatory Policy Committee to improve the quality, and where appropriate reduce the quantity, of regulation on business. I note that the Government have continued with them.
Julian Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the top five deregulatory measures that his party took in the 13 years it was in government?
Mr Umunna
I cannot name the top five, but the whole reason the Better Regulation Executive and the Regulatory Policy Committee were set up was to reduce regulations by a huge number and improve their quality.
In government, we also conceived the technology and innovation centres, to promote innovation. The Government are now rolling them out across the country, and they have sought to build on the measures that we put in place to reduce the bureaucracy of Government procurement and increase SMEs’ access to it.
In many other areas, however, there has been a disorderly retreat from an active approach. The Government have undermined certainty for investment, cut the science and research funding budget by 15% in real terms and abandoned the 10-year funding plan, and they have abandoned sector strategies such as the defence industrial strategy. The Automotive Council continues, but the RDAs, which could have helped make a reality of the ambition to strengthen companies’ supply chains, no longer exist.
The Government have undermined new industries, such as green industries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will outline in the debate that will follow this one. They have delayed the roll-out of universal broadband and undermined the collaborative institutions that we set up to work with businesses, such as the Office for Life Sciences and the Technology Strategy Board, which are widely respected. The higher education sector, the seventh-largest export industry, has been put in disarray by the Government’s visa changes. Support for the digital, creative and educational sectors has been scaled back. Then there is the decision to award the £1.5 billion contract for new Thameslink trains to a manufacturer that will make them in Germany, which means that Bombardier is reviewing its activities in Britain.
The Government have retreated from action, undermined confidence, failed to unlock investment, failed to deliver a credible plan for growth and failed to use action to back business. They need to back our five-point plan for growth now and put in place a credible plan to build for our long-term success. These are difficult and challenging times for businesses and people in this country. They deserve better from a Government who say, “We are all in it together”, but who, time and again, show that they have absolutely no understanding of the concept.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I should like to respond to the motion, which actually bears only a passing resemblance to the speech made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). I will start with issues of fact that I hope we can agree on.
The motion makes perfectly legitimate points about the state of the economy. It is certainly true that there is slow growth across Europe and in the UK. We fully understand that. We have not had the double-dip recession that has been predicted since the very first day of this Government, but yes, we do have slow growth. We accept that we have a worrying level of youth unemployment, although the largest component of that, the NEETs—those who are not in education, employment or training—were actually at their peak level before the financial crisis occurred. It is correct to say, as the motion does, that we have a high, and we would argue excessive, level of borrowing. That makes it all the more perverse that the single policy that the hon. Gentleman is offering to us is to increase that level of borrowing, which he considers so toxic.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s constituency has 1.8% unemployment and mine has 7.9%, yet the Secretary of State’s Government have chosen to leave a full employment service in Witney and to close down the jobcentre in Deptford. Does he agree, and will he support me, in asking his colleague to return an employment service to Deptford to help the 1,000 young people who are out of work now?
Vince Cable
Obviously, I do not know the particular position in Deptford, but I am very happy to take up the specifics if that helps.
The particular question that the hon. Gentleman started with was fair: why did the economic slow-down occur? He quoted my colleague in the upper House and others of varying views about why we have lower growth than was predicted by independent forecasters 18 months ago.
Vince Cable
Let me try to deal with this issue. We would all probably accept—I hope that the hon. Member for Streatham would accept—that the Governor of the Bank of England is an independent, non-partisan, non-political analyst of what has occurred. Let me read to him the Governor’s account given a week ago on why the slow-down in growth has occurred. He said:
“This reflects the impact on the United Kingdom of the deterioration in prospects internationally, working through weaker net trade, higher credit spreads and the likelihood”
of elevated uncertainty. He goes on to describe the impact of world energy and commodity prices, and the 35% increase in the sterling price of oil, none of which was mentioned in the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Vince Cable
Let me just finish this argument. Some of us have argued for a long time that the underlying problem is that, since the beginning of the crisis, the British economy has suffered—I use my own metaphor— the economic equivalent of a heart attack. There is a profound problem, and what lies behind it is the fact that, more than any other developed country, we have quite extraordinary levels of debt.
There are different kinds of debt. Household debt is 160% of gross domestic product and, after the boom that took place under the previous Government, it is higher than in other developed countries. Banks’ balance sheets are more than 400% of GDP, after they were allowed to run out of control. Government debt is 180% and rising as a result of the deficit financing we had to undertake. If we put those things together, as McKinsey has done, they show that the position we inherited is one where total debt in the UK is approaching 500% of our GDP. The only other country with a problem of that scale is Japan. That is the inheritance we are now seeking to manage.
Mr Umunna
First, on borrowing, does the Business Secretary accept that the average of the independent forecast that his Government published last week shows that, for all his claims to be working to a strategy to reduce our debts, his Government could end up borrowing more in every single year remaining of this Parliament than under Labour’s more sensible deficit reduction plan? Secondly, does he accept that confidence indicators when he took office and took charge of his Department were not too bad and were improving until the comprehensive spending review was announced, after which it nosedived?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions.
Vince Cable
On the level of borrowing, let us wait until next week and see what the independent forecast is in the Chancellor’s statement. Of course, the reason why borrowing rises when the economy slows down is the flexibility that is built in—the so-called counter-cyclical stabilisers that we employ as part of our fiscal policy. Unlike the United States and other countries, we allow slow-downs to be accommodated in that way, supporting the economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what our strategy is to deal with this problem. I will summarise it. There are three parts. First, we have to stick to fiscal discipline to maintain the confidence of the people who lend to us. That is a very simple proposition that is very difficult to realise and it is something we have done. He quoted various comments from business organisations around the country. I keep in touch with such organisations regularly and go around the country to the regions and nations of the UK. I have yet to meet a single representative of the business community who has asked us to slacken our process of deficit reduction—not a single one. They all make it absolutely clear, including the CBI, that they regard plan A, as it is called, which is deficit reduction, as an absolutely necessary pre-condition to stabilising the economy.
The second element relates to the first. Precisely because we have a large amount of debt in our economy, the priority for Government has to be to preserve an environment in which there are low interest rates. The stimulus we get in our economy—the source of demand—comes primarily through monetary policy. Through the Bank of England acting on short-term interest rates, through long-term interest rates related to bond yields, through quantitative easing at the Bank of England—now credit easing—and through a competitive exchange rate, we have a monetary policy that supports growth and demand. Given the massive debt we have inherited, it is only through monetary policy—relatively low interest rates—that we can possibly support the economy.
Vince Cable
It is certainly a last resort in a major economic crisis. I am sure he appreciates that we are living through an economic crisis that is unparalleled in our lifetimes. That is why not only Britain, but the United States and other countries are having to resort to unorthodox monetary policy. That is a reflection of the desperation of many western countries. Our Bank of England has been comfortable with our fiscal policy and, to that extent, has been willing to support it through monetary means.
Those are two of the three elements of the strategy. The third is rebalancing the economy. We inherited an economy that was horribly unbalanced in favour of debt-supported consumption and banking, and we are now rebalancing the economy towards exports and trade. Rapid growth is taking place at the moment in British exports. That is the strategy on which we will proceed and on which we will be judged. The alternative we have been offered is something called plan B, which I think has been renamed the “Antiques Roadshow” in respect of the shadow Chancellor. No serious business organisation is arguing that such financial irresponsibility has any prospect of success.
Nadhim Zahawi
In the document that I have in my hand the shadow Business Secretary says, regarding the new economy, that we need to build an economy that is
“less vulnerable to global shocks”.
How does the Secretary of State think that building an economy based on £100 billion of extra borrowing by 2015 will deliver that?
Vince Cable
I can give a bit of substance in answer to that. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which has been critical of the Government in some respects, has done its own simulation. On the use of fiscal policy to support growth, which I think is what the Opposition plan B is all about, it says that in order to stimulate growth from 1% to 2% we would need to have a Government borrowing account of about 12% of GDP. Is that actually what the Opposition are proposing, because that is what their plan B—fiscal stimulus—means?
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is very good at talking about the support he gets for deficit reduction. When he is travelling around the UK, do people support his growth policies, because I have not met a business man who does?
Vince Cable
I have tried to explain that wherever I go, not just in the business community, there is an understanding that, given our inheritance, we have to pursue fiscal discipline. It is as simple as that. We will support that with economic growth measures that I will develop, responding to the comments of the hon. Member for Streatham, in a moment.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State knows that some of us, even on the Labour Benches, have always admired his grasp of economics, and his analysis is impressive. I also know that he gets around the country; he has recently been to my constituency. However, what people are telling me when I go around the country is that they understand the analysis but want to know where is the imagination that is needed when a Government see 1 million young people unemployed. Where is the charismatic leadership? Where is the air that something is really being done fundamentally to help these young people?
Vince Cable
I will describe in more detail, as will the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, some of the initiatives that we are taking on apprenticeships, for example, which reflect real imagination and real change.
Let me try to respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Streatham made. First, he wholly misunderstands what is happening with the regional growth fund. More than half the projects are under way in the first wave of the regional growth fund. The factories have been built and the jobs are being created. Because of due diligence, the disbursement—I have had this confirmed—is still taking an average of three to six weeks. I am happy to pursue the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the case that he dwelt on at some length is the result of the applicant having radically changed the status of their application, and we will happily look at that. However, I am not going to take lectures on the disbursement of Government money. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but the previous Government set up a £5 billion trade credit insurance scheme which, after two years, has managed to disburse £81,000. The regional growth fund is proceeding as predicted and suggested by Lord Heseltine and his team. We are following those processes. The factories are being built and the jobs are being created, and that is what matters.
The hon. Gentleman challenged me on procurement. I have been to Derby and talked to the people involved. Obviously, we are very concerned about what has happened in that case. The problem with procurement is that for a decade or more the public procurement policies pursued in this country were unbelievably short-sighted and legalistic. In the case of the Thameslink contract, we inherited a contract procedure based principles that did not allow for the wider effects on the British economy. However, that particular decision has been made. I have made it absolutely clear, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made it clear two days ago, that we are going to approach public procurement in a different way. We are going to do it strategically and take account of supply chains. Of course we will operate within the law and will not be protectionist, but a lot can be done through public procurement that we are now going to pursue. My only question is why on earth Labour Members did not do this when they were in office if they care so much about it.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State now in a position to give me an answer that he could not give when I questioned his departmental report a couple of weeks ago—namely, exactly how many jobs have been created by the regional growth fund so far?
Vince Cable
No, I cannot do that, because the projects are under construction. When they are fully completed and fully staffed and their supply chains are established, it will be possible to come up with a meaningful number.
The third area of criticism and questioning of the hon. Member for Streatham related to the banks. The motion recycles the idea of a bank bonus tax, so let us go over what that involves. The current estimate from the CBI, which has carried out research on this in the City, suggests that the yield from bonuses this year—the bonus pool—is likely to be something in the order of £4.2 billion. Of that £4.2 billion, £2.5 billion goes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in tax because of high tax rates on bonuses, and rightly so. That leaves £1.7 billion in bonuses paid out, assuming that the projection is correct. The Opposition are suggesting that they will have a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses. Where is this £2 billion going to come from? It is considerably more than the total bonuses paid out. Even if they applied 100% tax, which is implausible, what would happen, obviously, is that pay would be consolidated. They have not thought this through. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman did not bother to raise it. Can he can tell us how it will work?
Mr Umunna
I am happy to do so. I am slightly bemused that the Secretary of State should quote those figures from the CBI. It represents all the banks, so would he expect it to say anything different? Of course, the bonus round has not yet been completed, so we have absolutely no idea what the final figure will be.
Vince Cable
I see that the hon. Gentleman is playing for time.
Apart from this slightly mysterious bank bonus tax, what is extraordinary is that we are being lectured on the banking system by a party which in government allowed the banking system to run completely out of control. There was no regulation on cash bonuses. Despite the fact that the banks had an implicit Government guarantee, they were not required to pay any tax for it. We have introduced the banking levy. Labour allowed tax avoidance on an industrial scale and did absolutely nothing about it, yet the hon. Gentleman now presumes to lecture me on banking. I really do think that Labour Members need to reflect a little on what happened in the banking system.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman made various references to spending commitments—or our damaging spending cuts, as he saw them—and tax cuts. This is the time of year when my grandchildren write letters to the north pole addressed to Santa Claus. I have to say that compared with what we are hearing, those letters from my five-year-old grandson are a model of financial discipline and economic literacy. The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was very eloquent in criticising the cuts to the university teaching grant. The hon. Gentleman has adopted other targets—for example, he has criticised the cuts in the regional development agencies. He has also criticised cuts in the science budget. Last week, he made a very eloquent statement on this, despite the fact that the scientific establishment had been very complimentary about the fact that we had protected the cash budget for science.
When I came into my current job, the one thing I knew was that my Labour predecessors were planning to cut the Department’s budget by 25%, and that is what we have done, because that was the economic reality. I am therefore left with a question to which I have been trying to get an answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be more forthcoming and economically rounded than his predecessor in telling me how the Opposition are going to achieve their plans. Where is the money going to come from? We have a whole lot of spending commitments in every area of our Department, but not a single suggestion about where those heroic cuts are going to come from. Of course we would like to spend more money on science and other things, and of course some of the tax cut proposals are very attractive, such as the VAT rate on building repairs, which would cost £1 billion, but where does the money come from? This gets to the heart of the problem, which is that the Labour Opposition’s proposal is financially irresponsible. It deals with the problem of Government borrowing by adding to it and deals with the problem of Government debt by adding to it.
Mr Umunna
The various commitments that we have made are all costed and fund themselves. The Business Secretary has said a lot about banking. If he is so fiscally responsible, will he join us in committing to use all the proceeds from the sales of the public stakes in the banks towards reducing the deficit?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman’s numbers may have been costed but they do not add up—that is the problem. As for the banks, it will be quite some years before the sales take place. The Northern Rock sale has gone ahead—that is a small bank—but for the major banks, it is likely to be some years ahead. We do not know whether it will be in this Parliament or the next; we have no idea what the economic conditions will be. It would be ludicrous for me to hypothecate about revenue receipts at this stage.
I will move on to my final passage, because I would like colleagues to have an opportunity to speak. I will summarise some of the positive things that we are doing, albeit within a very constrained budget, to support growth. Of course, fiscal discipline and monetary policy have to be supported by interventions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a role for state intervention. I am not in favour of laissez-faire. There are things that we can do.
Our concentration is on export growth. There has been 13% export growth over the past year. We are outward looking. The motion does not even mention trade. It is unbelievably parochial. I spend a lot of my time in emerging markets with British exporters—I have been to all of them—to support export growth. I do not claim personal credit for the growth, but we have acted as a catalyst for export growth in Brazil, Russia, India and China—the BRIC countries—of 26%, in India of 34% and in Turkey of 30%. I keep in touch with our exporters by working with them and alongside them to deal with overseas Governments. That is where the recovery is going to take place. It is on the back of those exports that we are getting rapid growth in manufacturing in certain sectors such as the automobile sector, which has attracted big inward investment from Jaguar Land Rover and others.
Julian Smith
Will the Secretary of State tell us what situation he found exports in when he arrived in his post? What sort of condition was UK Trade & Investment in and what great suggestions did the previous Government have in this area?
Vince Cable
UKTI has been radically reformed, thanks to the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Green. I think that it will perform an excellent function. What I found was that British export activity in the big emerging markets, which is clearly where future growth lies, had been sorely neglected for many years. As somebody put it to me, when we turned up on the beach the Germans were already in the deckchairs. They have dominated the market in these countries and we are a marginal player. It will take years to turn that around, but that is where our emphasis lies.
Nadhim Zahawi
Does the Secretary of State agree that under the previous Government we exported more to Ireland than we did to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together?
Vince Cable
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of one of my best lines. It is partly a compliment to Ireland that we trade with it so extensively, but that fact is an appalling commentary on our neglect of the big emerging markets.
Export growth is one key focus for us. The second is people and apprenticeships. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will say more about this in his summary. Despite a severely curtailed budget, we have increased apprenticeships—actual people doing training—by 50% over the past year. There are now 350,000 people in such training. We do not accept that that is the end of the road. We have to improve the quality and refocus as much as possible on younger apprentices, thereby addressing in part the problem of youth unemployment. This is a major success story and we are proud of it.
On access to finance, one of the major themes of my analysis has been that what we are dealing with is a collapsed and non-functioning banking system. It is right for Members to continue to cross-question us on the Merlin agreement, because that is at the heart of the problem. We have stopped, at least in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises, a process of rapid deleveraging. We are using Government funding through the regional growth fund and, from next year, the Green investment bank to co-finance private capital so that there is access to finance for British industry. We are taking initiatives to support equity finance. The business growth fund is not Government owned or controlled, but it is a major initiative that should have been taken decades ago to get equity finance functioning. Access to finance is a critical issue—of course we accept that. It is a consequence of the banking crisis that we are focused on it.
I want to give one final concluding thought. When I hear the Opposition speaking about the economy, I think that lying at the back of their world view is the idea that what we are currently in the middle of is a cyclical problem—we had a boom, we had a bust, we will press a few buttons, spend a bit more money, and we will get back into a boom again. This is not a cyclical problem; it is a profound, long-standing structural problem. We had the wrong model. Growth was based on fundamentally the wrong principles, it was not sustainable and it collapsed. We are now having to repair the damage.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I remind everybody that there is a five-minute limit on speeches.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I will bear in mind your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The problem in a debate like this is where to start. I will start with what I want to see, which is business growth. Business growth delivers job creation, which in turn delivers tax revenues and growth for individuals, the importance of which we should not underestimate at any cost. The fundamental question that we are discussing is whether Opposition and Government Members believe that the Government can be a driver for growth. I and a number of my colleagues believe that they can be.
Why is this debate so important? It is important to my constituents because people in my constituency are losing jobs, and businesses in my constituency are going bust. The industry that I have been involved in since I was 18 years of age has been decimated by the Government. In Ochil and South Perthshire, 5.6 jobseeker’s allowance claimants are going after each job. I realise that that is by no means the highest rate in the UK. The number of JSA claimants in Ochil and South Perthshire has risen by 95% since 2006. The overall number of people in employment is falling. In the last year, 93% of constituencies saw a rise in their claimant count. That has been caused by the speed and depth of the cuts, and by the private sector not being able to keep up with them, just as the Opposition said would happen.
That is why we want the Government to do more to help UK businesses. Helping business helps employment. The Government have cut capital budgets by 11%. Because their deficit reduction plan is failing, they will have to borrow more to pay for unemployment and to cover falling tax revenues. That is the backdrop that has led to this debate. The Government should listen hard to what is said by my colleagues on the Labour Benches.
As I said, I have been in the construction industry all my life. I remain involved in that business today. In the time that I have left, I will talk about what the Government can do and should be doing to help the construction industry. It is my view that the construction industry gives a measure of the economy as a whole. It is of the private sector, but it needs the public sector and the private sector to survive. If businesses want to expand, they need the construction industry to do so if they need premises, transport networks or communication infrastructure. If the construction industry is on its knees, the country is on its knees. The Government need to grasp the fact that every pound spent in the construction industry generates £2.83 in the wider economy. That point is not disputed.
The Opposition’s five-point plan would benefit the construction industry from point one through to point five. I will focus on one or two of the points in the short time that I have left. Bringing forward investment projects to get the industry working again would regenerate our infrastructure, allow future growth and give skills to individuals.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend wants to comment on the call of the International Monetary Fund for a global growth compact, which supports exactly the initiative that he is suggesting. It says that there must be infrastructure development in the west—not just this country but the whole world—to recover from this economic downturn.
Gordon Banks
I agree with my hon. Friend. If we do not get our infrastructure right, we will not be in the position that we want to be in when things move forward and we will be disadvantaged. I ask the Government not to look solely at big individual projects when they are trying to regenerate the economy. We need local and regional regeneration and investment in local and regional infrastructure.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s introduction of the Work programme, which will help many of those JSA applicants of whom he spoke, and the new enterprise allowance, which gives significant sums of money to unemployed people who want to set up a business?
Gordon Banks
My experience of the Work programme is that it is a not-working programme.
The cut in VAT to 5% for home improvement repairs and maintenance—another part of Labour’s five-point plan—would discourage the black market and encourage investment in our housing stock at a time when the Government are wringing their hands about the green deal. Experian data show that a cut from 17.5% to 5% would have produced a £1.4 billion stimulus to the UK economy in 2010, which would have got Britain building. It is working on reviewing that figure in the light of the current 20% VAT rate.
On housing, which is an important part of the construction industry, social rent starts and affordable home starts have fallen by 99%, but in 2007, there were 357,000 first-time home buyers in the UK, who generated £2.1 billion in our high streets. That is the real power of the construction industry and why the industry is so important to the whole of the UK. I hope the Government plans announced earlier this week to regenerate the housing market deliver progress, but one must ask: why have they been asleep at the wheel for the past 18 months?
On lending, we are a country of small businesses, yet the Federation of Small Businesses tells us that credit lines for financially sound businesses have been tightened and interest rates have increased. The Federation of Master Builders has reinforced the point about that failure.
The Government have announced a desire to look at credit easing, which suggests that Project Merlin has failed. Do they know how much of Project Merlin’s compliance agreements are re-signed and recycled arrangements? Do they know that banks are withdrawing overdraft facilities and setting businesses up with term loans?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman echoes the shadow Secretary of State in criticising the Government for undertaking quantitative easing. In truth, this Government and the previous one undertook quantitative easing, but there is a huge difference between them. This Government are using QE to buy bank debt to put liquidity into the banks, which is much needed by business, whereas the previous one used QE to buy Government debt, because at the time, the rest of the world had lost confidence in buying it.
Gordon Banks
I never mentioned quantitative easing—I was talking about term loans. Term loans are being offered to businesses because they are better for the lender, not the borrower, and because they deliver a skewed figure into the Merlin arrangements. That cannot be acceptable. Business should not be run on term loans.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
As this is a business debate, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on introducing this debate and on the thoughtful way in which he presented his case. As I said in an intervention, he offers an opportunity for a fresh approach. What a contrast this debate is to the one on the economy called by his colleague the shadow Chancellor a couple of weeks ago, which turned into an episode of “Romper Room”—some hon. Members are old enough to remember that—with childish comments being made left, right and centre. The hon. Member for Streatham presented a much more cogent case today, but that is the root of his problem. He is the fresh new hope, but unfortunately he is held back by sad and discredited ideas, the core policy of which, as the Prime Minister has said, has been reheated and resold at least eight times already.
I encourage the hon. Member for Streatham to be a little bolder in setting out his ideas. I know that he agrees—his speech lasted 31 minutes, but only in the 30th did he get round to talking about Labour’s so-called five-point plan. I ask him to spend more time developing his ideas, and not to be held back by the discredited Labour past.
Mr Umunna
Back-handed compliments aside, it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that I did not talk about the different elements of the five-point plan. I remind him that I cited a list of the different business organisations that have called in different ways for parts of that plan to be implemented—from the Federation of Master Builders to the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate that, and I shall continue to listen intently to all the hon. Gentleman says.
The challenge that this country faces to restore growth is immense. It needs good ideas from both sides of the House and full commitment to the task. On that point, may I say gently to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is a noble individual and a good gentleman, that sometimes people feel that commitment may not be there 100% of the time from the Department, and that is a commitment to the role of the free market and business. It is as though we have at times a literary equivalent of Dr Cable and Mr Hyde. There is one part of the personality of the Secretary of State that embraces the idea of business and likes the approach of free markets, and then there is the other side of the personality that likes to hang out with a bunch of people on a camping holiday outside a well-known church musing on the merits of capitalism.
Julian Smith
Just to correct my hon. Friend slightly, this Government have done more than the previous Government did in 13 years on deregulation and freeing up British business. We must not lose sight of that.
Richard Fuller
That is absolutely true, but the challenge that we face is more immense because of 13 years of over-regulation by the previous Government, and because of the challenge of the international community. From the Secretary of State’s announcements today, I know that the sunshine side of his personality is more to the fore, and that he will demonstrate a strong and full commitment to the hard work that entrepreneurs and business leaders are putting in around the country.
I encourage the Secretary of State to take action on three further areas. First, I encourage him to work more strongly with the Treasury on ideas for credit that work for all sizes of businesses. Although there is a lot of emphasis on trying to make the banks a useful conduit of finance to small businesses, that is not working for very small businesses. Please can we look at alternative measures? Can we look again at tax relief for debt financing for our micro-businesses? For the first time, can we consider peer-to-peer lending organisations such as Funding Circle, which provides an alternative way of raising funds for small businesses? It is not enough to come forward with another policy that relies on the banks doing something tomorrow that they are not doing today.
Secondly, I encourage the Secretary of State to look at the sector that is the biggest drag on our economy, namely the bureaucratic state. If we want to create a growing economy, we cannot ignore such a substantial part of it. I encourage him to ask other Ministers to enlist our public servants and bureaucrats in the task of identifying growth. Every single day, the employees of small businesses in my constituency work very hard to create growth and the conditions for profitability, and they tell me that they are not getting the support they need from either their local government or their national Government. We need a culture change in our Government Departments. They need to say: “Our primary task—our national mission—is to support the growth of enterprise and business. What can we do every day to help people to achieve that?”
Will the Secretary of State also look at the opportunity provided by social enterprises? The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is the Minister with responsibility for the civil society, is doing a lot of work with social enterprises to free them from some of the burdens of regulation. Will the Secretary of State have his Department look at how the power of social entrepreneurs can be brought to bear on our public services and public sector so that they can be more productive? Social enterprises are a fantastic way to encourage growth.
Will the Secretary of State consider using Parliament to review outdated statutory instruments, laws and regulations that are a bureaucratic drag on productivity and business? Rather than using Parliament to pass new laws, we could use it to scrap existing ones. I am sure we can find time for that.
Thirdly and finally—this underlies all our efforts to create growth—I benefited in my career from two fundamental pushes on growth in our economy: building out the global supply chain and the consequential growth of financial services, which gave people the ability to buy goods and services much more cheaply than they would have got them had we relied only on a national economy; and the growth of information technology. The next source of fantastic growth is likely to be when households in India and China want to buy our goods. But that is not here today. That is not going to be here in the next five years. What we can do in that period of time is have a national campaign led by the Secretary of State to create an entrepreneurial society recognising that there are different motivations for being an entrepreneur. Not only do entrepreneurs want to make money; people are motivated by spiritural objectives. Let that be the mission and legacy of our Secretary of State.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). He and I have a common interest in the supply chains that he ended his comments talking about. The Secretary of State knows that I have been working hard in the north-west region to improve the automotive supply chain. That is one of the solutions because we are now in a position to recapture work from countries to which work in the automotive sector was previously exported as a result of changes in those countries’ economies. As labour costs have risen, as they will continue to do inexorably in Poland and China for example, we will be able to start thinking about recapturing that work. There needs to be common ground there.
I want to correct one point: for the second time, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made a mischievous intervention concerning the previous Government’s record on deregulation. I think that the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) will back me up on this point because she attended the Regulatory Reform Committee assiduously when I was its Chair: we could count on one hand the number of times a Conservative Member turned up to the Committee in the last Parliament. Perhaps they are finding their road to Damascus at last.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman and I spent many happy hours tinkering around the edges of much regulation but we did not really power into the important pieces of regulation. Does he agree that that is what the Government are now seeking to do?
Andrew Miller
That was certainly the case with the Regulatory Reform Committee—it used the framework of the House to make limited adjustments—but we should remember the legacy left by Sir William Sargent, who did an amazing amount of work leading the Better Regulation Executive and putting in place the framework now being utilised. To ignore his work would be an insult to a fine public servant.
On skills, I am pleased that the apprentice Minister or the Minister for apprenticeships—whichever way it is—is here. I understand that he has indicated his wish to visit West Cheshire college. He is most welcome to visit that fine college built with resources provided by Labour but I would like him to think about some issues, particularly the needs of apprentices and young people coming to train from areas of extreme deprivation. There are many simple things that he could urge the Treasury to think about. For example, in my area there are plenty of vocational courses leading to jobs in specialist sectors, yet young people from deprived areas who, had they stayed on at school, would have got free school meals get no support to help them eat when at college.
TTE training runs a good training centre in my constituency providing Cogent training courses—I recently had the great pleasure to attend the royal visit to the centre organised at the behest of the royal family. That training centre is doing fantastic work at the high end of the petrochemicals sector—with players such as Shell and Ineos Chlor—but it is having difficulty finding a financial solution to deal with the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Secretary of State will know that in Germany the burden is often placed on the large players, which are encouraged to finance the supply chain. That is one possible solution but the important point is that we need a practical solution, otherwise we will have no way forward and the young people making themselves available to go on such courses will be—
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous by suggesting that there was a great deregulatory fervour about the previous Labour Government. For the past eight months he has served assiduously alongside me on the Löfstedt review looking at the reform of health and safety law. Would that review have been carried out under the previous Labour Government? Should it have been carried out? If so, why was it not?
Andrew Miller
I do not want to be tempted to comment on the review because it would breach the embargo—of course, the hon. Gentleman and I have seen its contents—but I shall be happy to express my views publicly in days to come. However, there is a fair amount of agreement between him and me on this point so I ask him not to tempt me down that line.
Mention has been made of the serious issue of the science base. The Secretary of State has got to get to grips with the confusion in the university sector. A combination of things has impacted on the universities, such as the fees structure changes, the capital spend problems and the overseas student issue. Yes, it is welcome that millions of pounds are being spent on a graphene centre in Manchester, but would it not have been ironic that had these rules been in place, Andre Geim might not have been at Manchester university to make those fantastic discoveries? The Government have to think carefully about the possibility of damaging a £5 billion industry that provides us not only with a superb base for our own research and development and science-based companies, but with a huge export of knowledge, which improves our relationship with so many of the countries with which we do business. I urge the Government to rethink what they are doing in the university sector.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
When I read the title of this debate—about supporting business to encourage economic growth and employment—I hoped that all the parties might for once argue constructively to come up with ideas together. I am sure that we all agree that business in this country needs support, and we all want it to get that support. On the economy, however, that is probably where the consensus ends. The coalition Government cannot abandon their plans and adopt the seductive mantra of going less far, less fast. The consequences of doing that can be seen across the channel in Greece, Portugal and Spain, which have borrowing rates of 32%, 11% and 7% respectively, compared with Germany’s 1.82%, France’s 3.12% and the UK’s 2.28%.
Mark Lazarowicz
The hon. Lady is in danger of becoming complacent about the Government’s policies, which, as has been pointed out, are resulting in an increase in borrowing well beyond what was predicted. Is there not a danger that the UK could become the target of those who want to speculate on rising debt? We need a change of policy internationally, as was suggested earlier, to prevent the entire world economy from falling into a cycle of more depression, recession and less growth. That is the answer. She should not be complacent about the situation in the UK as a result of the Government’s policies, which are leading to increased borrowing.
Lorely Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he is absolutely right to say that there is more borrowing than we had anticipated. However, the amount of borrowing will be going down year on year. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench would agree with me that we cannot get out of a debt crisis by borrowing more. At some stage we have to start actually paying the money back. The UK is borrowing at low rates—we have that confidence. Let us just imagine how many more jobs would be lost and how many more people would be suffering if we were borrowing at 32%—that is, if we were in one of those dark places.
The motion starts with the usual party knockabout. For example, we are supposedly “choking off” growth and
“failing to use strategically procurement and other tools to drive growth and innovation”.
However, it is not true that we have failed in that respect. We have cut corporation tax, and by the end of this Parliament we aim to create the most competitive corporate tax system in the G20. Research and development credits will rise by 200% this year and 225% next year. Then there is regulation. We have scrapped the proposals that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) was talking about, with savings to business currently amounting to £350 million a year. Whatever we did in our little Committee, it never amounted to that sort of saving. We have also introduced a moratorium on new regulation for micro-businesses.
Then there is technology and innovation centres, and so on—I do not have time to say much more in five minutes.
Julian Smith
The exemption for micro-businesses is a key development from this Government. Does my hon. Friend think that some of the arrogance of Opposition Members comes from their never having worked in a small business, and that that absence of business experience is influencing their views?
Lorely Burt
I would not dream of criticising Opposition Members. I know that quite a number of them have run their own businesses—micro-businesses and bigger businesses, too—but I also give our Government credit for coming up with that exemption, because it is an important source of help at a difficult time.
Finance has been a big issue. We have not got it right yet: there is more lending, but we still need to do more. We have continued the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and the programme of enterprise capital funds. We are also encouraging a more enabling environment for business angel investment, taking forward a package of investment readiness through a network of growth hubs. Then there is the bank-led £1.5 billion business growth fund, to provide funding of £2 million to £10 million for small and medium-sized businesses with strong growth potential. What is more, as I am sure even the Opposition would concede, we have not failed to use strategic tools to bring forward growth. Indeed, a number of those strategic moves are ones that Labour introduced.
After the knockabout we come to the constructive part of the motion, which is very welcome; indeed, I agree with some of it. However, the plan to levy a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses—this week it is to fund 100,000 jobs for young people and 25,000 more affordable homes—is a nice idea, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is just not practical. We are already taxing banks every year to the tune of £2.5 billion, on the basis of the banks’ balance sheets. That is more than the Labour party raised with its £2 billion bankers’ bonus tax—a move that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) has already admitted has “failed”.
Opposition colleagues also suggest reversing the VAT rise for a temporary period. That is great, but how are they going to pay for it? What other cuts will they make instead? Is this part of their slowdown programme—their “not too far, not too fast” agenda, which has so spectacularly failed in America, whose credit rating has been downgraded and whose debt is now $15 trillion? The motion calls on us
“to bring forward long-term…projects to get people back to work”.
I totally agree with that—who would not?—and I hope to see more strategies that complement the things that we are already doing, such as the Green investment bank, the green deal, house building, the growing places fund, and so on. I would also like the council house building programme to be brought forward before we receive the receipts from the sale of 100,000 council houses. Why wait? Let us build those houses now.
I also agree with the suggestion of a one-year cut in VAT on home improvements, repairs and maintenance. The Treasury is losing many millions of pounds in revenue because of a growing black market involving private customers and small businesses paying cash for jobs done in their homes. The one-year national insurance tax break to help small businesses grow and create jobs is a great idea—one for which I have lobbied for some time. However, as a start, and to make it more affordable, why not introduce it for small businesses? I would greatly like to see—
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is easy to launch into a debate about the macro policy, but we all represent individual businesses. The most frustrating thing for our electors, whatever seat we represent, is the gap between Government policy and rhetoric, and the reality on the ground. I would like to use three businesses in my constituency to illustrate the way in which Government policy is damaging growth.
The first businessman, who should remain anonymous, is a local plumber, known to Members in all parts of the House because he has replaced many MPs’ bathrooms. He faces a dilemma because of the increase in VAT to 20%. After 40 years in the industry, he tells me that the increase has become a psychological barrier for many customers, as they are immediately able to work out the amounts involved. People understand what they are paying much more than they do when the rate is 15% or 17.5%. He is afraid that the VAT increase is a double whammy for the economy. First, there will be more VAT avoidance and the tax take will fall, thereby making it harder to reduce the deficit. Secondly, the increase will lead to people not doing jobs around their homes, which will stifle economic growth. The Opposition have said that we want to reverse the VAT rise and have a one-year cut to 5% on home improvements. I strongly believe that we should analyse the impact of the VAT increase on small businesses, in the long-term financial interests of the country.
The second concern is about banks’ lending policies. Terry Withers, of Admiral Scaffolding, a company of 20 years’ standing, says that Government-backed RBS refused to let the business go overdrawn by just £5,000, even though it was the first time he had ever asked for an overdraft and the business had uncleared cheques going through its account worth £26,000. The company was also refused a loan that would have seen it convert all its vehicles to the latest green technology and expand its scaffolding kit, which in turn would have allowed it to increase the number of people it employs from 100 to 140. Mr Withers says that he is exactly the sort of business man who has lost out because of the failure of the Government’s Project Merlin.
In the first three quarters of the year, over half the SMEs applying for an overdraft for the first time were refused. A few months ago, when I took up the case of another business in a similar position, the Merton chamber of commerce told me that local firms were pessimistic about the future because of constraints on their working capital and the difficulty of raising finances. No wonder the CBI has found that almost two thirds of business leaders are considering changing their work force plans. The truth is that, so far, the Government have been unable to make the banks lend—that includes even our own banks, such as RBS—and when the banks refuse, direct Government help is pitiful.
My third case concerns Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I would like to take this opportunity to voice my anger about its disgraceful attitude when dealing with MPs’ casework. I have always had difficulties in dealing with HMRC. In the most recent case, which was brought to my attention by Simon Walker of SPS Timber, a window manufacturer and replacement company in my constituency, I wrote to HMRC in August. It wrote back nearly four weeks later to say that it hoped to reply to me by November. Then when the reply came it was full of inaccuracies. The issue concerned HMRC’s penalties for late cheques for payroll. Mr Walker says that HMRC had not told him of the penalties. He argues that those penalties are a false economy, as they could be the breaking point for some small firms.
HMRC’s reply described a letter allegedly sent to Mr Walker in May, even though Mr Walker says that he keeps all his correspondence and has received nothing. My visit to his business showed him to be an assiduous record-keeper. HMRC admits to not having any record of the letter it sent him. HMRC claims that it spoke to a “Catherine Walker” about this in October, but nobody of that name works for the company, and in any case this was months after the penalties were charged. My telephone conversations have been just as infuriating. I am sure I am not the only Member who finds HMRC utterly unsatisfactory.
Mark Lazarowicz
My hon. Friend may recall that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said a few moments ago that we were arrogant in raising these issues, but she is absolutely right to raise all the concerns of our constituents. We do not raise them because we are arrogant, but because we see the effects of Government policy on our constituents every day. We know that the Government might be trying to a certain extent, but what they are doing is not good enough and it is not working. That is why we want action now to deal with people’s problems with tax and unemployment—and it must be more than what the Government are doing already.
Siobhain McDonagh
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I am making this speech because I want the Government to be sure that they know what individual small businesses and manufacturing businesses are saying on the ground.
Siobhain McDonagh
I do not want to take up too much time because I know others have things to say. I am seriously concerned about HMRC’s handling of casework and I do not think that it has the capacity to balance its role in raising taxes with its key role in generating economic growth. I hope that we can explore this concern on future occasions. I am grateful for the opportunity to let the House know how my constituents feel.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. There is no doubt that growth and employment should be at the top of everyone’s list of priorities, and I know that that applies to this Government, who are trying to promote that agenda. This motion, however, does nothing to build on that. It is just more of the same from the Labour party—the party that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. [Interruption.] It is the party that just loves to spend other people's money.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I think that the hon. Gentleman might have dropped his script. According to his own party, growth and job creation are not the No. 1 priority, which is deficit reduction. We absolutely support the hon. Gentleman in what he said, so will he start to put some pressure on his party to put growth and job security at the top of the agenda again?
Stephen Metcalfe
I put the two hand in hand. [Interruption.] Yes I do. The Government have a cogent plan, but as I say, they have to deal with the reality that we inherited.
As I was saying, the Labour party just loves to spend other people’s money. We all like to spend money: it give us that warm glow inside, but I imagine that the rate at which Labour has spent money, and wants to spend it again, would give a white-hot glow. Labour Members do not even try to hide the fact that they spent all the money. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) informed us in his now infamous note that there was no money left. Again, it falls to us to clear up their mess.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about problems at the Inland Revenue, but is not the truth that the botched merger with Customs and Excise has meant a vast deterioration in performance, which has affected many of my constituents? That is the fault of the Labour Government.
Stephen Metcalfe
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. That is another problem that we have to sort out by clearing up the mess left by the previous Government.
Despite what Labour Members say and despite the sentiment behind this motion, we are, I believe, making good progress. As we have heard, we are creating the most competitive tax system in the G20; we are investing in businesses to help them start up and grow; we are encouraging inward investment and supporting exports; we are investing in science and technology and creating a more educated and more flexible work force. Of course there is still more to do, and I believe we are doing it.
For example, today, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary announced new reforms to employment law—mentioned by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)—as part of the Government’s plan for growth, which will cut unnecessary demands on business while safeguarding workers’ rights. However, if we listen to the instant reaction from Labour, we find that they would have us believe that these measures are anti-employment and the reforms are about making it easier for companies to fire staff. I believe that the reverse is true. The Opposition spend a lot of time trying to cast employers as the bad guys—as a group of money grabbers trying to get rich off the backs of the workers.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend interested to hear the comments of the former Labour MEP Eluned Morgan, who is now a Baroness, when she stated that many in the private sector had sensed the animosity of the Labour party towards that sector?
Stephen Metcalfe
I would indeed agree with that view. I believe that all Government Members, and I suspect some Opposition Members too, would agree that the vast majority of businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, know that their most valuable asset is their staff. Employers need staff and staff need employers. The problem has been that in the current economic climate firms are cautious about taking on additional risk, and that often means being cautious about taking on additional staff. I believe that making it easier for companies to manage their staff levels makes it easier for them to take on staff. Knowing that the risks of employment have been reduced might well unlock the employment door.
Bill Esterson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst things for an employer, particularly a small business, is having staff who are unsettled, looking for other jobs and fearful for their own future, which is actually bad both for the business and the economy, because those people spend less money? The measures proposed by the Government will simply contribute further to that, and make the situation worse.
Stephen Metcalfe
I agree that having an unsettled work force is not healthy, which is why it falls to business men to reassure their staff. However, it is possible to unsettle a business by insisting that it employ staff when there is not necessarily a role for them and it might be difficult to afford them.
Stephen Metcalfe
No I will not, I am afraid.
Responsible businesses have, and recognise that they have, a duty of care towards their employees and will often put their welfare before their own. They will not take decisions that would destabilise an existing business. As someone who has run my own business—and, unfortunately, had to let staff go—I know how difficult those decisions are to take and how painful they can be on both sides of the divide. Businesses do not want to take risks with the livelihood of those whom they already employ, so they may not hire additional staff unless absolutely they are sure that they are needed and affordable. Trying to downscale later could be costly and time-consuming, so they avoid the risk.
The proposals announced today might well help employers to make the decision to hire earlier, thus stimulating employment and growth, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises. If each one were to employ one additional member of staff, we would have an employment deficit. This will build on what has already been achieved in the last 18 months, with 500,000 new private sector jobs, more than 500,000 new businesses created, the manufacturing sector growing and our credit rating restored.
Labour Members would have us believe that they left us with some golden economic legacy, but nothing could be further from the truth. In the 13 years they were in power unemployment rose, workless households rose, and households where no one had ever worked more than doubled. Unfortunately, we also saw youth unemployment, which we all accept is a problem when it has risen to nearly 1 million. That is why I welcome the measures that the Government have brought forward, particularly in my own constituency, which has seen the number of apprenticeship places rise this year from 560 to 740.
The Opposition’s plan B is not credible. It just means spending more money that we do not have, because they have spent it all. It means borrowing more, and hang the consequences. It means saying, “Hide the bills, stop opening the post, don’t answer the door.” Well, that will not work. When you are in a hole you must stop digging, but we are trying to climb out of the hole that we are in. The Opposition’s solution means doing the equivalent of going to a payday lender to borrow and spend your way out of trouble. We all know what happens when people do that: they lose their credit rating, and that is a really serious problem which could cost this country many billions of pounds that it does not have.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The audacity and complacency of Government Members is truly extraordinary, given the present state of the economy. The headline figures for UK economic growth are deeply worrying. Growth is flatlining, and it is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with any sense that the Government’s decision to cut too far and too fast is choking it off. We also know that growth began to stall before the effect of the eurozone crisis kicked in, and that even now the full impact of that crisis has not yet been felt.
Bill Esterson
The figures show that consumer and business confidence began to decline when the coalition Government were formed, at the time when the Prime Minister started talking about Britain being bankrupt. Was not the Prime Minister very unwise to make such comments?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Indeed. We also know that as a consequence of Government policies—and according to independent forecasts—it is very likely that borrowing will have to increase. That is having devastating consequences. Unemployment is rising, particularly among the young, although women are also being disproportionately affected.
The headline figures should concern us, but what should also trouble us greatly is the uneven way in which the consequences of the Government’s disastrous economic policies are being felt across the country. Once again the north-east seems to be bearing the brunt of the Conservatives’ economic policies, but this time—and I hope that this point is not lost on the voters of the north-east—they have the collusion of the Liberal Democrats.
The current unemployment rate is 11.6% in the north-east, but only 6.3% in the south-east. Similarly, the claimant count is highest in the north-east and lowest in the south-east. As I have said, the situation is even worse for young people. In the north-east, unemployment among young people increased by 106.3% between January and October 2011, prompting real fears that the region would return to the economic dark times of the 1980s. Yet this dire situation is so unnecessary.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State said—it is unfortunate that he is not present, because I wanted him to hear this—in the north-east gross value added actually grew between 1989 and 2008, as did GVA per head of population. That was primarily because money channelled through the regional development agency One North East levered in £9 for every pound spent—much more than the national average—and skills levels also improved year on year.
Angela Smith
The first technology innovation centre, Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing park, was established by a Labour Government through a regional development agency working with the private sector. Such arrangements have been criticised by Government Members, particularly Liberal Democrats.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. It is interesting to note that before the general election, in my region at least, the Liberal Democrats were apparently in favour of regional development agencies.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am sorry; I am running out of time.
We know that the RDA helped to invest in a new generation of advanced technologies with expanding markets around the world, which greatly helped growth in the north-east. Through industry, Government and university collaborations, a number of sectors were identified in which growth should be prioritised, including the processing and chemical industries, automotive and advanced manufacturing, and printable electronics. Those sectors, critically, were underpinned by centres of excellence supported by the regional development agency.
Did the incoming Government seek to build on that? No. What they did instead was get rid of One North East, although it had extensive support from businesses and the community in the north-east, and what we have in its place is the regional growth fund, about which I shall say more in a moment. The loss of the regional development agency led to a loss of expertise in regard to the sectors that needed to be developed in the north-east, and a loss of what was necessary to support that development. In great contrast, the regional growth fund not only has less money but is not strategic at all. I am very pleased that a number of north-east companies have benefited from the RGF, although the Secretary of State must address the fact that getting the money through to the companies is taking a long time.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
No; I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
The RGF along with local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones do not by any stretch of the imagination add up to an economic policy for growth for the north-east, or for anywhere else for that matter, because they are fragmented initiatives with no local coherence. The RGF will not help to narrow the north-south divide, either. As I have acknowledged, a number of companies in the north-east have benefited from the RGF, and according to the Government’s own figures that will secure about 8,500 jobs, but in the same RGF round money went to the south-east to secure 30,000 jobs.
The north-east’s problems are compounded by the fact that the RGF money is not a sufficient injection to the private sector to enable it to make up for the jobs that are being lost in the public sector. To put the figure of 8,500 jobs in context, last month alone unemployment in the north-east rose by 19,000. The Government must do more, therefore. In the past couple of weeks a number of independent commentators, including the North East chamber of commerce and PricewaterhouseCoopers, have said that the Government need to do more to support private sector development in the north-east, and our five-point plan for growth sets out a clear way for them to start supporting the economy.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to bring a Welsh perspective to this debate. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is no longer in his place, but I must say that his speech was much more coherent than the Opposition’s motion.
When considering economic growth across the entire United Kingdom, it is important to remember that there is a Labour Government in Wales, and we can compare and contrast what is happening in Wales with the positive steps the coalition Government are taking in supporting enterprise and private sector growth. Businesses in Wales are crying out for the enterprise zone idea to be implemented in Wales, yet we are still awaiting a coherent announcement from the Welsh Assembly. We in Wales have a Labour Minister for enterprise and the economy who has stated that she regrets capitalism. It is therefore no surprise that the Institute of Directors and other organisations have stated they feel that there is no partnership with the Labour Assembly Government and that Labour rejects, rather than embraces, the private sector.
Steve Rotheram
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors? If we cut one, the other bleeds. What is needed at present is a transfusion for the private sector, which is part of Labour’s five-point plan.
Guto Bebb
If what we are seeing in Wales is an example of Labour economic thinking, I am very pleased that it is in opposition in the rest of the United Kingdom. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party in Wales has shown across the generations a failure to understand the importance of supporting enterprise.
Guto Bebb
Not at the moment, as I wish to finish the point I am making. The valley communities in Wales have suffered extremely badly not just for 10 or 15 years, but over a period of 30, 40 and 50 years, and it is fair to point out that throughout that entire time they have, unfortunately, been electing Labour councillors, Labour MPs and Labour Assembly Members. There was a fantastic business support programme in the south Wales valleys called the heads of the valleys innovation programme. It was such a good programme that in 2010 it won the award for the most successful enterprise support programme in the entire United Kingdom. What did the Labour Administration in Cardiff do? They cut its funding, and that was the end of an organisation that had supported hundreds of businesses and protected more than 4,000 jobs in some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. It was cut because it was supporting private enterprise, which the Labour party does not understand or embrace.
Despite the fact that the motion, in general, is incoherent, I want to follow up a few points. In my constituency, we are extremely dependent on tourism, which is a major driver of growth in north Wales. It is imperative, in my view, that that sector is supported. I should point out that under pressure the Welsh Assembly has finally acknowledged that the sector deserves support, but initially the Welsh Assembly Government stated that tourism deserved no support whatsoever.
My concern about tourism is that as a coalition Government we stress the need to create a competitive tax regime for our businesses but in Europe other countries are significantly reducing VAT on tourism. It is important that we have a level playing field and I ask the Secretary of State to consider discussing the issue with the Treasury to ensure that tourism in Wales can benefit from similar VAT rates to those in other parts of Europe, including Ireland and France. There are reports to which I have access that state that the multiplier effect of making such cuts would be financially beneficial to the Treasury.
The other issue that is imperative for growth in the economy is support for small businesses. It is all very well to say that there will be a cut in the corporation tax rate, but most of the new start-up businesses that are creating real employment in my constituency will be sole traders and partnerships. Obviously, they will benefit from the increase in personal allowances, but a key issue that creates a problem for them is the VAT registration threshold. Nobody denies that the UK has a very high VAT registration threshold at £73,000, but that is not my complaint. As businesses grow and start to reach the threshold, they find themselves on a cliff edge. If they go over that level, they have to register for VAT and lose a significant part of their profitability. We need to reconsider the VAT threshold to support small businesses.
I understand that we are running out of time in the debate, so I shall leave that issue with the Secretary of State. To support small businesses in my constituency, we need to consider the VAT threshold and how it interacts with profitability.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank all those who have participated in today’s debate. On this side, we heard sparkling presentations from my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). We heard interesting contributions from Members on the other side of the House, too, including a speech from the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who appears to give our five-point plan two out of five, and a particularly stimulating speech from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—I do not think, however, that it will put him on the Secretary of State’s Christmas card list.
It is clear that for businesses, councils and communities across England, this has been a wasted and frustrated year for growth in England’s regions under the Department’s watch. It has been a wasted and frustrated year for the entrepreneurs and communities who have found their ability to grow and innovate stifled through the Department’s inability to present a coherent framework for growth or to stand up for their interests against other Government Departments. In all three key areas that are vital to growth—supporting the local enterprise partnerships, making the regional growth fund work properly and securing regeneration funding from Europe—the Department has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Time and again, the Department has failed to be the Department for growth.
As long ago as last September, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), felt the need to write to the Secretary of State to warn of the icebergs ahead. He listed the organisations that were anxious about the way the LEPs were being set up and the failure to make them more sufficiently business-orientated and he ended by warning that
“the danger is that the CBI and others become detached from this policy heralding likely failure in large parts of England”.
Who can forget that the Secretary of State himself famously described the process as Maoist and chaotic, while the former CBI director general, Richard Lambert, simply confined himself to saying that it was a shambles?
That should come as no surprise given that in June 2010 the Secretary of State went to the Northwest RDA, praised the work that it and other agencies had done and gave them assurances, only to have to confirm their abolition two weeks later after he lost the argument with the Chancellor, who wanted them axed. It was an early example of the loss of authority and dismemberment of decision making that his Department has endured ever since. BIS Ministers allowed a decade’s worth of expertise and local know-how to be lost almost overnight. Experienced RDA staff were let go before the LEPs were up and running and at the very time when they could have provided crucial assistance.
No wonder that even the Government’s growth tsar, Lord Heseltine, who heads up the regional growth fund, has come out and said that their hasty abolition of RDAs was a mistake. Not the least of the errors was the fact that this swept away all the informal architecture and channels of connection between business, further education, higher education and small employers that had been built up to boost growth in the English regions. We saw the cost of their hasty abolition when Pfizer announced the closure of its Sandwich plant in February. The South East England Development Agency had previously been able to act swiftly with a task force to help those affected to find jobs, but this time the Government failed to use that RDA even though it still had some people in post who could have given advice.
Mr Marsden
No, I will not because there is not time.
The Government failed to put Sandwich in the initial list of enterprise zones or to approve any of Kent’s first-round RGF bids. We saw the same pattern of help being denied initially and then an enterprise zone being hastily cobbled together when disaster struck at Derby with Bombardier and with BAE at Warton and Samlesbury. The Department is behind the curve and out of touch with events on the ground.
Back in February, the Labour Front-Bench team made six proposals to support LEPs, such as giving them first refusal on assets, providing them with start-up funding, giving them powers over skills funding, allowing them to form larger groups for infrastructure projects and giving them a central role in the delivery of funding from the European regional development fund. The Government’s response, however, was to block them from receiving assets or even acquiring them by deferred payment. It was only the broad support across a whole host of business organisations for our direction of travel that pushed the Government into a climbdown over their proposed fire sale of RDA assets.
The Government have given only limited seedcorn funding to LEPs—about £6 million for 40. That remains inadequate and the future of LEPs, especially for those without enterprise zones as growth vehicles, remains fragile. The Government have also failed to address other key measures that would empower LEPs and give them the tools to do their job—despite repeated calls for the LEPs to be given more powers. As has been warned by the Federation of Small Businesses and, more recently, Centre for Cities in its report, the Government need to get a grip of underperforming LEPs before it is too late. There are real fears that entrepreneurs and local businesses in LEPs will simply walk away if they simply become talking shops—as the Forum of Private Business has warned in its briefing today.
We have always argued on principle that money intended for the regions should remain in the regions. That is the stark contrast between our real localism and the Government’s sham localism. They preach localism but when they had the chance to give LEPs additional powers in the Localism Bill they funked it. As growth in the economy has flatlined, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has become progressively enfeebled as it has lost turf battles to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills still protests that the regional growth fund will save the day but, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has so forensically detailed, there is no more fitting emblem for its failures than the regional growth fund. Right from the start, the Department’s grasp on the fund has been feeble and flawed. In rounds one and two it was hopelessly oversubscribed, but the only response of the Minister of State was “That’s life”. Well, he should tell that to the consortia and to businesses. He should tell it to those who have had to wait an age for the cheque in the post. No wonder Andrew Neil said so memorably on “Daily Politics” to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “The £1.4 billion fund has so far disbursed £5.8 million. Why is your Government so useless?” How many people does the Department have working on round two? The answer that was dragged out of them through parliamentary questions was that there are only 11 full-time staff working on the fund. We can do the maths ourselves. How long will it take 11 people to work through the 119 successful bids to the second round?
Small and medium-sized enterprises, which are a key element in growth across the regions, find themselves short-changed and unrepresented on a number of the boards. They are frozen out by the Government’s thresholds of £1 million minimum on RGF funding and £5 million on the business growth fund. No wonder there is such frustration. What is more, the growth fund seems to have hardly any regional input. All the decisions are being micro-managed by Whitehall civil servants. There is no regional consultation or input and no sign that local offices will play a meaningful role in the process. With the propriety of some of their decisions called into account, the Government have pulled down the shutters on the detailed parliamentary questions that we have tabled about the process and the conflicts of interests on the advisory panel. That is not surprising, as BIS presides over a scheme into which it does not put a penny. Despite proclaiming, as he has done again today, the number of jobs that will be created, the Secretary of State has admitted that they are merely going on their own estimates.
Despite the money that the Department for Transport has put into the growth fund, the fund has failed to look at new public transport projects or build on the importance of travel-to-work areas. The Government have abandoned the active industrial policy that, in our last years in office, we pursued, and that led to the successful carbon strategy pursued by One North East. Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should have done everything in their power to unlock the European funding that did so much good and boosted jobs and growth across the regions, but in this, as in other areas, they have been sidelined.
Why have the Government produced the Growing Places fund like a rabbit out of a hat? Is it because even the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have given up on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? Once again, there will be no BIS input in the process—only tanks on its lawn from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
England’s regions are full of people with ambitions and ideas about how to bring growth to their area, but the indecision and powerlessness shown by the BIS ministerial team has short-changed them and failed to rebalance our economy or provide a plan for growth. They have failed to stand up for the needs of local businesses, whether it is small towns in Kent or former industrial areas in the north-east. They have gone too far, too fast, in scrapping the regional development agencies and their collaborative structures, and become mangled in lost turf wars with CLG and the Treasury. They are like a rabbit caught in the headlights, petrified of the markets, but there are positive things that could be done for the fight. Roosevelt famously said that there is nothing to fear but “fear itself”, and Lincoln said that when the
“occasion is piled high with difficulty…we must rise high with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”
The Opposition understand that, which is we have a five-point plan for growth. We understand that young people across England’s regions are crying out for the opportunities that our national insurance changes will provide by enabling us to build affordable homes and reduce VAT to 5% on repairs. We understand the need for an industrial strategy, and we understand the need for new ideas, and then, by thinking anew and acting anew, we will save our country.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
First, the previous Government inherited a boom, and then they bequeathed a bust and a massive deficit, so our top priority must be to deal with the consequences of that and keep out of the downward spiral into which countries such as Greece and Italy have fallen.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) have argued, more than ever we need a plan to give confidence to markets, businesses and our people. This debate was introduced by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). It was his first major outing, and I thought that his speech was fair. It was better on structure than on presentation—but then again, I suppose the 11 advisers write the speeches; they do not deliver them. [Interruption.] No, I am a fan of the hon. Gentleman. It has become orthodox to say that he has been over-promoted, but I think that that is a welcome change from the self-promotion that has characterised his career so far. We can therefore be grateful that he is at the Dispatch Box, as he predicted he would be for so long.
The problem with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members—in fairness, we heard some good speeches from them—is that they still refuse to acknowledge that reducing the deficit is central to any credible plan. We only have to look at the continuing crisis on the continent to see what would happen if we do not do so. To be analytical about it, the hon. Gentleman made a speech about cyclical problems in a structural context. The issues around debt and deficit in this country are structural, and they will not be solved by cyclical solutions.
Mr Umunna
The Minister seeks to give me a lecture on reducing the deficit. Can he explain why, as I asked the Secretary of State earlier, in the average of the independent forecasts, his Government are forecast to borrow more in every remaining year of this Parliament than we were under our more responsible deficit reduction strategy?
Mr Hayes
That was the ponderous exaltation of a basic economic fact: when tax yields fall because there is less growth than expected, and welfare payments go up, of course that is a result, but it is not a reason not to have a credible fiscal policy. The hon. Gentleman remains in denial, just as the shadow Chancellor remains in denial, but the OECD—
Mr Hayes
I am sorry, I will not give way. I usually do but I do not have time.
The OECD says that we have a £37 billion structural deficit and that it is the largest in the G7. It is not just about the Government debt. The hon. Member for Streatham must know that if we look at debt as a whole, we have the largest debt as a proportion of GDP in the developed world, with the exception of Japan.
Mr Hayes
No, I will not give way again. Time does not allow.
So, the first thing we have to do is deal with the deficit. The second thing, as the Secretary of State said in his penetrating analysis of this weak motion, is to rebalance our economy in favour of making things, selling them and exporting them. That means an investment in human capital as well as in infrastructure. That is why we have put so much emphasis on apprenticeships.
I noticed that, sensibly, neither the proposer of the motion, the hon. Member for Streatham, nor the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who summed up and who has rather sensible views about these things for the most part, attacked our apprenticeships policy. They know that we have delivered the biggest growth in apprenticeships in modern history. They know that across regions and across sectors, we have shown growth in apprenticeship numbers. There is a great deal of discussion about this so let us get the facts on the record.
Apprenticeships among 19 to 24-year-olds have grown by 64% in two years, and among 16 to 18-year-olds by 29% in two years. They have grown even more among over-25-year-olds, but the biggest proportion of growth has been at level 3. It has been across sectors and across regions. The biggest regional growth—I say this to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods)—has been in the north-east.
The third element of the strategy must be to deal with tax, cut red tape and bureaucracy, and support businesses to create jobs and fuel growth. Much has been said about what the Government have done in that respect. It is true that we have launched the growth and innovation fund, which is supporting life sciences, the creative industries, the hospitality industry and others. It is also true that the regional growth fund is doing that job as well. In the first phase the regional growth fund will support 50 projects and ultimately more than 150 projects. That will leverage more than £8 billion of private sector investment to create or safeguard more than 300,000 jobs. That is the simple fact of the matter.
Labour does not have a credible alternative. The Opposition’s five-point plan is rooted in a denial about deficit which would undermine confidence in business and in the markets, push up interest rates and do lasting damage to Britain. The Labour party inherited a boom. Its legacy was a bust.
The shadow Chancellor is not present, but his fingerprints are on the motion once again. He said recently that he cries at “The Sound of Music” and “Antiques Roadshow”. We all wondered why “Antiques Roadshow”. I will tell the House: he is wedded to the idea of an over-valued, tired out, worn out old Cabinet, and it is the one that he was in. The previous Government and current Opposition would be better taking advice from a singing nun than from the shadow Chancellor or the hon. Member for Streatham.
I urge the House to choose between the past and the future, between despair and hope, between fantasy and reality, and vote for hopeful reality by opposing the motion.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to Schengen governance, the Ayes were 461 and the Noes were 23, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Solar Power (Feed-in Tariff)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 297 - Jeremy Wright
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 220 - The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No.31(2) and Order, 14 November).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Before we start the debate, I also have to inform the House that some 28 Members wish to participate, so we will need some adherence to the time limits, which Members will see is five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that solar power gives families, community organisations and businesses greater control over their energy bills and will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets and reduce carbon emissions; notes that since the creation of the feed-in tariffs scheme under the last administration, introduced with cross-party support, nearly 90,000 solar installations have been completed in the UK and the number of people employed in the solar industry has increased from 3,000 to 25,000; believes that the Government’s cuts to feed-in tariffs go too far, too fast, will hit jobs and growth in the solar industry, undermine confidence in the Green Deal and deter investment in the wider green economy; regrets that the cuts to feed-in tariffs were announced with just six weeks’ notice and come into force before the consultation has even finished; further regrets that the Government’s plans would exclude nearly nine out of ten households from installing solar power under the feed-in tariffs scheme, will disproportionately hit social housing and community projects, and could affect thousands of households which have already installed solar power; and calls on the Government urgently to withdraw the 12 December 2011 deadline and bring forward more measured proposals that guarantee the continued growth of the solar industry, put feed-in tariffs on a sustainable footing and are fair to the public.
Exactly a year ago today, in a speech to the Micropower Council, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), lauded the feed-in tariff scheme. He said:
“The coalition is absolutely committed to FITs…I have been really encouraged by the positive response that the FITs scheme has received since its introduction in April and hope this will continue. It’s still early days but early indications show that the scheme is working well”.
Well, they say a week is a long time in politics, but a year is obviously an eternity. However, at least the Minister is not on his own today, and we are glad to see the Secretary of State in his place. We all remember his famous energy summit, which went so well he decided to do a disappearing act. When his Department announced these cuts to feed-in tariffs, first, it tried to sneak them out in a written statement. Then, when I secured an urgent question, he sent his junior Minister to take the flack instead. Anyone would think he was trying to avoid me, or perhaps the Secretary of State is just very good at not getting caught at the crime scene. Either way, his fingerprints are all over this one.
Although talk of feed-in tariffs might sound technical, their impact could not be more real. Some 25,000 jobs are on the line. Thousands of businesses are at risk and tens of thousands of people who have already installed solar could still lose out. Millions more have been excluded from having solar under the Government’s new rules and have been denied the chance to control their energy bills. That is all because we have a Government who are out of touch, cutting too far and too fast, with no plans for jobs and growth.
Caroline Flint
I will make some progress because a lot of people want to speak in this debate.
At the outset, let me deal with a few of the myths that the Government have desperately resorted to peddling in defence of their plans and that appear in their motion today. The first and most bizarre is the idea that we were opposed to the introduction of feed-in tariffs and that somehow the Tories and the Liberal Democrats introduced them. It takes some audacity to try to claim credit for a scheme that was enacted, introduced and came into force under the previous Labour Government, but to try to take credit for a scheme that they are scrapping really takes the biscuit. The record will show that while Labour began this growth industry, the Government’s policies have all but killed it in its infancy.
The second myth is the Government’s claim that the reason they are cutting the tariff level is that they are worried about energy bills.
Caroline Flint
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. This from a Government who have cut help for more than 12 million pensioners with their heating bills this winter and who have stood back and done absolutely nothing as customers’ bills have soared and energy companies’ profits have rocketed.
If the Secretary of State really wants to talk about energy bills, I will tell him a thing or two. Let us start with how much the average annual energy bill costs under this Government—£1,345—and how much feed-in tariffs cost the public. From what the Government have said, one might think that this is costing us all hundreds of pounds a year, but it is not. Is it perhaps £50 a year, or £20, or even £10? No, the actual figure, according to the independent regulator, Ofgem, is less than £1 per household per year—less than £1 at a time when the average energy bill stands at £1,345, when pensioners are seeing their winter fuel payments cut by £50 or more, and when standard tariffs are up by £175 only since June. Labour and I will not take any lectures on energy prices from this Government.
Caroline Flint
If the Secretary of State really wants a debate about this, let us start one.
Chris Huhne
There was only ever one vote in the House of Commons on feed-in tariffs, in April 2008, when the right hon. Lady voted against. What has made her change her mind?
Caroline Flint
There was an amendment tabled by the former Labour Member, Alan Simpson. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) said at the time:
“I sympathise with, and fully support, people’s yearning for appropriate incentives to encourage the faster take-up of microgeneration.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2008; Vol. 475, c. 393.]
He told my hon. Friend and the House that he wanted to go away and look at what could be possible. On 5 November in the same year, the Labour Government tabled an amendment in the House of Lords that paved the way for the scheme that we have today. We do not need any lectures by the Secretary of State on who created the opportunity for feed-in tariffs in this country—it was the Labour Government.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Companies such as Sharp in Wrexham have expanded and employed more people because they believed the Government on feed-in tariffs, only to find that they have pulled the plug.
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the damage that has already been done to many businesses around the country. I will come to his point about the impact not only on insulations but on manufacturing in Great Britain.
We are happy to have a debate about why the Government are cutting help for pensioners this winter, when they need it more than ever, and about why this Government have stood back and allowed the big six to increase their profit margins to record levels while energy bills have soared, but let us also have a debate about why this Government have failed to stand up to vested interests in the energy industry and failed to reform our market.
Let us not pretend that the Government’s approach to today’s debate is about some new-found concern for bill payers. However much Ministers like to claim feed-in tariffs cost the public, when 25,000 people lose their jobs—[Interruption.] Government Members might not like to hear this, but people may be laid off this Christmas as a result of an ill-thought-through strategy. When 25,000 people lose their jobs, when the Treasury loses the taxes and national insurance they pay, and when we have to pay out unemployment benefit, the costs will be a lot higher. This Government would rather pay people to be on the dole than support an industry of the future.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I think we all accept that this is an extremely difficult issue to resolve. Given that the right hon. Lady is advancing the case that the Government are making the wrong decision, by how much is she prepared to see bills rise in order to sustain the tariff at the current level and in line with the level of income for people with solar PV?
Caroline Flint
I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has probably raised concerns about how his coalition Ministers have approached this issue. As I said, according to Ofgem, we are talking about less than £1 on people’s annual bills. What we said in our urgent question and have proposed in the motion is that we need to work to see how we can change the scheme as it moves forward, but in a sustainable way. The problem is that we have not had a chance to have this debate because the hon. Gentleman’s Ministers, in his Government, have chosen to set a cut-off date of 12 December even though they are still consulting until 23 December. When answering the questions about how we have got to where we are today, they have more to answer for than us.
Myth No. 3 is that the scheme would run out of money if it carried on as it is. In the past few weeks, I have spoken to a lot of people in the solar industry. I have yet to find a single person who argues that the scheme should carry on unchanged. I am sure that that has come across in the lobbying of Members on both sides of the House. Not even the industry is calling for that. It wants planned, sensible reductions in tariffs. That is exactly what we would have done. When we introduced the scheme in 2010, we made it clear that there would be a review in 2013, or earlier if needed, to look at tariff levels and whether the scheme was delivering value for money.
Let us get serious. We have a cut of more than 50% with just six weeks’ notice. Is that reasonable? Is that fair? Is that sustainable? I suggest that it is not. To make matters worse, the first that the industry heard of it was when it was summoned to the Department after the announcement had been made.
Frankly, the only reason that feed-in tariffs need reform is that this Government have managed the scheme so badly since coming to power. It is no good blaming us. Before the election, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members accused us of lacking ambition. They said that what we set up did not go far enough. The Conservative party said that feed-in tariffs should be paid to solar installed before April 2010 and that it would raise the capacity threshold for qualifying schemes from 5 MW to 10 MW. The position of the Liberal Democrats was also clear. Far from saying that our scheme was too generous, they wanted it to be more generous. Their spokesman at the time, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), said:
“Labour’s plans are too little too late.”
I tried to speak to him on Monday to confirm that that was still his position, but he spurned my advances. We wait to see whether he will join us in the Lobby this evening.
The fourth myth is that if we did not implement the Government’s cuts, solar power would be available only to the lucky few. However, it is the Secretary of State’s cuts that will exclude nearly nine out of 10 households from having solar power. It is his cuts that will prevent families living in social housing from having solar power. It is his cuts that will once again make solar power the preserve of the wealthy few.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Perhaps my right hon. Friend might like to tell Members who do not have any of these companies in their constituency or who do not understand this issue that they might like to walk five minutes from here across Westminster bridge and along Lower Marsh to visit Solar Century in my constituency. A large number of people there will be out of work precisely because of what the Government are doing.
Caroline Flint
I was pleased to take the opportunity to go to Solar Century on Monday with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It was very similar to the firm that I visited in Glasgow the other week with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). It is a company that employs young graduate engineers and other skilled people. It has links with small businesses and contractors around the country, including installers and fitters. Some people who had been working on the digital switchover have been trained up to do this work. There is a chain of despair and destruction throughout our country as a result of these proposals.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend expand on that point, because this proposal has affected not only the solar industry, but general confidence in the Government’s handling of the renewables sector? I spent an interesting evening yesterday speaking in depth with farmers who are concerned about the handling of this matter and about its impact on confidence in the anaerobic digestion sector, the biomass sector and so on. They do not trust this Government any more and they never will.
Caroline Flint
That is an important point. Some people say to me, “Caroline, this is all just about solar.” I say, “No it isn’t. It is actually about confidence, about the direction of travel and about being able to rely on the goalposts not being moved on a whim to effect some crazy policy dreamed up by these coalition Ministers.” What Ministers are doing is destroying this growing industry.
Interestingly, some of the social housing projects that have been brought to my attention wanted to put solar panels on the roofs of some of their properties, but they were also looking to use some of the gain from the tariff for other energy efficiency schemes, so the tariff would also have provided benefits beyond using solar power.
On Monday Solar Century brought it to my attention that it knew of a number of farmers who were interested in establishing solar. They were not thinking of solar farms, which caused some concern last year; they just wanted to generate energy to run their farms. They are now rethinking and cancelling their plans. That is not good enough.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
The mixed energy economy will include all renewables. Is it sensible or sustainable to subsidise solar at twice the rate of offshore wind? We have lacked an energy strategy for 13 years. At least we have now got ourselves in gear and there is a clear path ahead.
Caroline Flint
We are talking about things that are on totally different scales. Solar is pretty much for small businesses and communities. Of course we want a diverse mix, but the solar industry in our country—I will come to myth No. 5 in a moment—is 3% the size of Germany’s. Our industry is a baby in terms of what we need for the future and what we need from other energy sources. The Opposition will work consensually to tackle climate change and reduce our carbon emissions, but we cannot stand by when idiotic proposals are made that will strangle a growing industry at birth. That is just not good enough.
Caroline Flint
I shall make a little more progress before giving way.
Myth No. 5 is the idea that the Government’s plans are just like what has happened in Germany. Nothing could be further from the truth. The German Government invested €6.5 billion in solar last year; we are investing £860 million over four years. Germany has installed half the solar panels in the world and supports 250,000 jobs in solar; we have installed just 90,000 panels and have only one tenth of the jobs. This year the tariff for solar power in Germany was cut by 15%, in agreement with industry and only after installation levels reached a fixed benchmark: here the Government have announced a cut of more than 50%, with no proper consultation and only six weeks’ notice, which will take our solar tariff below that of Germany.
None of the Government’s excuses will wash, because the truth is that their cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power are a triple whammy. They are bad for jobs and growth, bad for the public and bad for the environment.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The right hon. Lady is right to say that the German Government are reducing the tariff by a much smaller amount. In January they are reducing it by about 15%, but they are reducing it to €0.24, which is almost exactly equivalent to the 21p tariff that the Government propose. They are reducing the tariff to the same level as ours.
Caroline Flint
Dearie me! The Germans have been planning how to staircase down their tariffs for years. They have a mature industry that is the world leader. We are not in that ballpark. That is why we must ensure that we do not strangle our industry at birth.
The cuts are bad for jobs and growth, bad for the public and bad for the environment. When growth is flatlining and unemployment rising, solar is one industry that is growing and creating jobs. When the previous Government introduced feed-in tariffs, just 3,000 people were working in 450 firms; today more than 25,000 people work in 3,000 companies. By 2020, as many as 360,000 people could be working in solar—but not if the Government’s cuts go ahead. Be in no doubt that the Government’s current plans will strangle the solar industry and cost thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs.
A survey conducted by the Renewable Energy Association and the Solar Trade Association earlier this month forecast in excess of 10,000 job losses. Fifty-seven per cent. of companies anticipate having to lay off at least half their current staff, a third are worried that their business will be forced to close altogether, and fewer than one in six are confident that they can weather the changes. That is the reality.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Is the Minister not missing the point about the comparison with Germany? The purpose of the tariffs in this country is to build up our industry and get it up and running, but cuts on this scale at this pace risk throwing the industry into reverse. Those production and new design skills that my right hon. Friend mentioned will be lost at a time when the Government should be helping to cut fuel bills for householders and cut the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Caroline Flint
I can add nothing to my right hon. Friend’s comments, except to say that there is another organisation that agrees with him—the CBI.
The Government claim, on page 2 of their impact assessment, that they can slash the solar industry by anything between 70% and 95% and still, as page 26 claims, increase the number of people working in it by up to 10,000. As someone I met at the lobby of Parliament yesterday put it, the Government may think that they can get full employment by shrinking the economy, but month after month we see that their plans are hurting but not working. We knew that the Government were out of touch, but today we see that they have lost the plot.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for eventually giving way. It was she who said only one month ago:
“The Government do not understand the reality for families who struggle to pay the bills at the end of the month”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 937.]
Does she agree that today’s debate is not about whether we support solar power, which we are all in favour of, but about the cost of the subsidies for solar—a small-scale industry—which will cost families about £26 a month extra by 2020? Would that not be an unreasonable cost on hard-pressed families?
Caroline Flint
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has neither read his brief nor sought other views. Ofgem, the independent regulator, made it absolutely clear that the feed-in tariffs cost less than £1 a year per household. The bigger problem is how prices have been put up while energy companies are making exorbitant profits, and while this Government are cutting the support available to people this winter. That is a price debate that I would like to have. The hon. Gentleman’s comments imply that he is in favour of those businesses going under, of social housing not having solar panels, and of this industry not even getting out of the cradle. That is rich coming from a party that prides itself on being the small business champion.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with a constituent of mine, Mr Robert Borrill, who described the Government’s decision as devastating, especially given that people have entered into commitments? Even those who have entered into financial commitments now will be penalised because of the six-week period. Surely, at the very least, the Government should consider that.
Caroline Flint
I absolutely agree, and I will come to that point later, because it is a travesty that the cut-off date has been set two weeks before the consultation finishes.
Caroline Flint
I want to make some progress, because I am conscious of time and lots of people want to speak.
For every job in the solar industry, many more in the supply chain are also at risk. According to the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the solar industry and its supply chain employ about 39,000 people and resulted in nearly £5 billion of sales last year. All of that is in jeopardy. Sharp Solar, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), currently employs about 500 people at its plant manufacturing solar panels. It is now warning that because of these cuts it is reviewing its presence in the UK, putting hundreds of jobs on the line. Given that we need to invest up to £200 billion in our energy infrastructure in the next 10 years, how can anyone have confidence in a Government who are so short-sighted that with just six weeks’ notice they are killing off a flagship policy that has cross-party support?
Gregory Barker
Before the right hon. Lady scaremongers any further, may I confirm that I spoke to the European head of sales at Sharp yesterday, and it has no plans to close its UK plant? It remains an important centre of European manufacturing.
Caroline Flint
Such companies are worried about the policies on the table, and they will be waiting with bated breath to see what happens. There are containers full of panels on our docksides all round the country not being used because sales orders are being affected by the Government’s policies.
Since we introduced feed-in tariffs nearly 90,000 families have benefited. That has helped those who want to do the right thing and green their homes, while also trying to protect themselves from soaring energy bills. However, under the Government’s plans nearly nine out of 10 households in England will be excluded from solar power and denied the chance to get just a little more control over their energy bills. That is because properties will be eligible for feed-in tariffs only if they have a minimum energy performance rating of C or above.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint
No, I will not give way.
However, the most recent estimate showed that 86% of properties in England had an energy efficiency rating of D or below. Those households will be excluded from solar power. The Government’s plans are unfair, too, not least because they could hit people who have already installed solar power. In fact, the cuts could hit people who installed solar power before the Government even announced the changes. That is the problem with a six-week deadline, when it takes up to seven weeks to get a solar installation on the FITs register. Those people are going to lose out. In answer to a parliamentary question the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, said:
“We recognise though that some prospective FITs generators who have incurred or committed expenditure may not be able to complete their installations and submit their applications for FITs before the proposed reference date.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 409W.]
What the Minister calls “prospective FITs generators” are people—thousands of them—who have already installed solar, but not yet registered. They will be caught up in a mess entirely of the Government’s making. They include, for example, the pensioners who wrote to me telling me that they had invested their savings in solar power to try to get their heating bills down and give themselves a little income in their retirement.
By cutting the tariff by an additional 20% for councils, housing associations and community groups, on top of the 50% cut, the Government’s changes will all but end solar power for social housing. Across the country, from Cambridge to Wrexham, Torbay to Leeds, Reading to Haringey, councils are already scrapping their solar plans; and last week it happened in Doncaster, too. As a result, those councils are forgoing funds that they could have invested—and that they planned to invest—in other energy efficiency measures for their tenants.
All Governments get accused of not listening, but it takes a special kind of arrogance—not to mention a healthy dose of incompetence—to launch a consultation that is half the normal length and closes after the cuts on which it is consulting come into force. What happens when the consultation closes on 23 December and all the responses tell the Government that their cuts go too far, too fast, and will kill the solar industry? What happens to all the projects that have already been scaled back or scrapped altogether? What happens to all the families who have already decided to cancel their solar installation? What happens to all the firms that have had to lay off their staff—to all the engineers, technicians and installation teams who have lost their jobs before Christmas? What happens to them? What all this says is that the Government do not care what anybody thinks; and what it shows is that they are completely out of touch.
When the economy is flatlining, unemployment is rising and even the Prime Minister admits that his plan is failing, what sort of Government choose to kill an industry that is growing and creating jobs? When energy prices are at record levels and millions of families are struggling with their bills, what sort of Government choose to exclude nine out of 10 households and everyone in social housing from installing solar to cut their bills? When Ministers are flying halfway around the world to Durban next week to try and reach an agreement on climate change, what sort of Government choose to cut back on policies that will increase our supply of renewable energy and reduce our carbon emissions?
From the CBI, the Mayor of London and the man who installed the Prime Minister’s solar panels, all the way to the Welsh Liberal Democrats and Friends of the Earth, everyone is backing our campaign and telling the Government that they have got this badly wrong. Today we have come to a crossroads. Much damage has already been done. Many projects have been ditched. Confidence has been dented, with future investment possibly lost for good. However, we can step back from the brink. We can put feed-in tariffs on a sustainable footing, in a way that is fair to the public and which secures the future of one of our brightest industries. Today I call on all hon. Members to support our motion—to tell the Government to scrap their 12 December deadline, to stand up for an industry that is growing and creating jobs, and to stand up for people who want to do the right thing and protect themselves from rising bills. I commend this motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that the previous administration only introduced a feed-in tariffs scheme following pressure from Liberal Democrat and Conservative hon. Members; further notes that during the period up to October 2011 over 120,000 UK solar installations had been completed; further notes that this is three times the deployment expected by the previous administration; recognises that no commercial-scale solar PV schemes were expected by the previous administration; further notes that the cost of PV panels has fallen by at least 30 per cent. since the current tariff was introduced and that the previous administration set the tariff levels for solar PV to deliver a five per cent. index-linked return; regrets that the previous administration did not draw on the experiences of Germany in setting a sustainable and predictable digression of tariffs; further notes that failing to act could add £26 to the domestic electricity bill of all consumers in 2020 including the 5.5 million people left in fuel poverty by the previous administration; further regrets that the previous administration did not introduce a community tariff; believes that the Government is right to bring the tariff levels back in line with the rates of return envisaged; acknowledges that it is right to link support under feed-in tariffs to energy efficiency and the Green Deal ensuring the most cost-effective carbon abatement measures are introduced first; supports a consultation on the introduction of a community tariff; and further believes that the Government is putting feed-in tariffs on a long-term, fair and sustainable footing.”
We find ourselves here to debate a motion that would add at least £26 to an average consumer bill—that is, if we were to leave the scheme unchanged. The estimates are constantly being revised, and the figure may well reach as high as £80 on the current trajectory. The proposal would give bumper profits to solar companies and do little to tackle climate change. There seems to be no awareness whatever on the part of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) or other Opposition Members that those are real costs, being imposed on real people, who will be unable to spend the money on other goods and services as a result. Every corner shop across the length and breadth of the land would be affected if disposable incomes were hit in that way. Some of the people who are in the greatest fuel poverty—about whom Labour Members are meant to be most concerned—will be most affected by these increases.
Feed-in tariffs have been successful. They have helped many people produce green energy locally, which is why, before we were coalition partners, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives supported their introduction. Solar energy has been particularly popular, with more than 140,000 homes now generating some of their own electricity. Unfortunately, this promising scheme was built on shaky economic foundations. In setting the returns, the previous Government completely underestimated the potential for cost reductions in the sector. They assumed that solar panels would cost just 9% less to install in 2012 than they would in 2013. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Don Valley, Labour did not propose to review this matter before 2013. In fact, costs are falling and falling fast—at least 30% since the scheme started. The result is that returns on solar photovoltaic investments are double what was originally envisaged.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What would the Secretary of State say to a company in my constituency, Sun Gift Solar—one of many in Exeter and the south-west that has contacted me—which clearly told me that its customers do not have any trust in what it calls this “erratic and inconsistent Government” whose actions have already immeasurably damaged confidence in this industry and will put tens of thousands of people back on benefits?
Chris Huhne
I do not accept that at all. I will come on to some of the flaws in the original design of the scheme. I think it is regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place alongside the right hon. Lady to defend the scheme that he introduced. I am going to be very clear—I am not going to pull my punches—about the mistakes made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and this scheme was introduced. I will deal precisely with that.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has just mentioned an investor in his constituency, so let me quote another—Martin Bleasby, the business development manager of Driffield-based Dodds Solar who said:
“It was clear something had to happen. It was never supposed to be a get-rich-quick scheme. The way things were going, the budget was going to run out in a few months. Now we can look at building a business which is sustainable for years to come.”
Chris Huhne
I happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).
Bob Russell
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the scheme is flawed. That is acknowledged. Does he agree, however, that where a social housing scheme or a community scheme has already commenced the process and panels are being installed almost as we speak, contracts should be allowed to roll even if they go beyond 12 December? Where the contract has already started, I say let it roll to completion.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have to say that since we announced this consultation I have received e-mails, as have a number of other hon. Members, from solar companies offering to install solar panels before the 12 December deadline. That does not suggest to me that we left inadequate time before the reference period.
Chris Huhne
Let me come back to the point my hon. Friend made about social schemes and social housing, about which I care. Sadly, however, another design flaw that emerged from the inception of this scheme—again, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North was responsible for it—was that it did not have the ability to recognise social housing or social schemes. If we wanted a special scheme to help non-profit-making companies, we would not have the legal basis for achieving it.
Chris Huhne
Opposition Members bounce up and down protesting about this issue, but they had the opportunity when they were in government to achieve this—and they did not do it. It is another one of the cock-ups for which, frankly, the Leader of the Opposition was responsible in designing this scheme. I feel for the right hon. Member for Don Valley as she does not have the support of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, who is not prepared to stand up here and defend what he did when he introduced this scheme.
The fact is that these returns are funded by consumers through their energy bills, and they are unsustainable. If we allowed them to continue unchecked, they would burn through the entire budget in a matter of months. If we do not act now, the entire feed-in tariffs budget for the current spending review period will be fully committed by next spring.
Chris Huhne
Let me make this point, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
With the current tariffs, each extra installation means that two fewer installations can be funded at the tariff levels. Every time the right hon. Lady or other Opposition Members say that we should not act—that we should defer dealing with the mistakes Labour made in introducing the scheme—they are condemning the industry to less growth than it would otherwise enjoy.
Caroline Lucas
I am frustrated by the Secretary of State’s implication that Opposition Members do not accept that the tariffs must come down, as of course they must. Does he accept that six months ago the solar industry itself asked for them to be reduced by 25%? The reason for the chaos we are experiencing is the incompetence of this Government.
Chris Huhne
I absolutely do not accept that. Not a single solar installer to whom I have spoken does not say that tariffs must fall, and on that point I entirely agree, but that was not the case before. This is another of the key cock-ups made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing the job that I am now doing. He failed to learn from the experience of Germany, which was very clear: those who introduce a scheme involving solar feed-in tariffs must introduce an automatic digression to take account of the real world. But of course Opposition Members are not very familiar or comfortable with the real world of business. The fact is that there should have been a reduction in the tariffs as a matter of automaticity.
Caroline Flint
If there was a provision for communities to take advantage of solar power, why are so many local authorities and housing associations cancelling projects? As a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s initiative, 100,000 social homes will not have solar power. Did not the Labour Government set in train a review to be completed by 2013, implicit in which was the need for a “staircasing down” of the tariff to achieve value for money?
Chris Huhne
The right hon. Lady makes a good and serious point, which returns me to what I was saying before. We need to consider, and consult on, whether there should be a separate tariff for social schemes. Many social housing providers offer their tenants free electricity to encourage take-up—free electricity that has been rising in value because of the rise in world gas prices and the rise in UK electricity prices. That is an important part of the rate of return. If providers give all that to their tenants, the amount that is left from the feed-in tariff to compensate for their financing costs will be less. However, we are not legally able to provide a separate tariff, because the Labour party did not implement such an arrangement when it was in government. I regret that, because it would have given us some flexibility.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have been lobbied by a constituent, Jeremy Anson, who works for a photovoltaic providing company. He fully accepts the need for a substantial reduction, but says that while the industry could cope with a reduction of 30%, he would struggle with 50%. We wonder whether a phased or gradual reduction would be possible, given that the number of orders received by his firm has fallen from a average of 15 a month to zero after 12 December.
Chris Huhne
I shall explain what we are trying to do later in my speech, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that the returns that the new scheme will provide—if, indeed, we proceed with it following what is a genuine consultation—will be very similar to the returns that were originally intended when the scheme was announced by the Leader of the Opposition in April 2010. As with some of the Opposition’s other achievements, the intention was right but the execution was definitely not, so it falls to this Government to attempt to clear up the mess.
We want to secure the continued success of feed-in tariffs through sustainable growth, rather than boom and bust. That is why we are consulting on new tariffs for solar PV installations. As the climate change Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), just pointed out to the House, they are now in line with those being offered in Germany. If the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, had bothered to find out how the Germans operated this scheme, we would never have been in this position in the first place.
Chris Huhne
Before I give way again, let me address this key point. To wait any longer would put at risk the entire feed-in tariff scheme. Anything that slows this process will substantially increase the risk that the scheme will run out of money. Each week of delay in changing the tariffs leads to additional annual subsidy costs of £4 million, but this is a 25-year scheme, and the figure over the spending review period is £14 million, or £87 million to £110 million over the 25-year tariff lifetime. A very small delay in tackling this problem will therefore result in substantial costs for electricity consumers over a 25-year period.
My experience tells me that when we face such a problem, we should not follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Don Valley and attempt to run away from it by pretending it does not exist. Instead, we must grapple with this problem, and deal with it quickly so the scheme can be put on a sustainable basis that will give the industry the opportunity to grow and prosper.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
This is a strange debate, as the Opposition seem to be on the side of big business, while we are on the side of the squeezed middle. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £1 figure Ofgem cited was for back in the summer when installations were running at about 2,000 to 3,000 a week, rather than the recent rate of 9,000 or so a month, and would that figure not have grown exponentially over time?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend is correct. I wish the House had facilities to show a PowerPoint presentation at this point, as I am now holding up a chart showing what has been happening with the scheme. The rising curve represents the installation rate increase. The Opposition cite the Ofgem figure of £1, but that applies down in the foothills of the curve, and we are dealing with a rather different real world today. Installed capacity has doubled since August, and has increased by three times since June and by tenfold since the start of the year. The right hon. Member for Don Valley is laughing; she has obviously had no experience of attempting to manage a budget, because if she had, she would not be laughing at all. This adds real costs to the electricity bills of real people—people the Opposition claim to represent.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State provide the budget figures for the feed-in tariffs in the levy envelope up to 2015, along with the central analysis undertaken by his Department of how far over that budget we would be under present arrangements? Will he also explain the headroom his Department has for putting things right over that period, and compare that with how far over the budget his Department is according to its central impact assessments?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is my neighbour in south Hampshire, so I was delighted to give way to him, and I wish we were able to address that fine granularity of detail, as he suggests. However, I shall place the graph I have been showing in the Library so that everybody can look at it. The situation is moving so swiftly that projections based on the current week’s figures would look rather more alarming than those for last week or the week before that. The real world is changing exceptionally rapidly. The impact assessment gives a clear statement of where we were at the point when the impact assessment was made. At that point, the figure was £26 on average energy bills for 2020 and the latest estimate is now up to £80—and at the high end of that if there is substantial growth. That takes me back to the point that if we do not deal with the issue quickly, we are not saving the industry, as the Opposition would like us to believe, but writing the death warrant for it. There would be a sudden cataclysmic fall in demand.
Chris Huhne
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is a former Minister in this area and whose expertise is well known.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
May I reiterate what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who speaks from our Front Bench? It is not about the fact the tariffs are being reduced but the way in which it is being done. Peabody housing association, which works in my constituency, was going to have installed 6 MW of provision by March of next year and the programme has been decimated. The Minister of State has said that it can get ahead with a 5% return but it was planning—and had received—a 7.5% return and its borrowing costs are 5.3%. It cannot be done. The Secretary of State must change his mind.
Chris Huhne
I listen to what the right hon. Lady says, but the reality is that the scheme takes us back to the rate of return when the scheme was introduced by the previous Government in April 2010. It was appropriate then and all we are doing is taking account of what has happened in the real world, where there has been a very dramatic reduction in the cost. I have yet to meet a single manager of a single scheme who has persuaded me that they will lose money by proceeding with their scheme. They might make less money than they previously planned—that occasionally arises—but the business of my Department is not to provide extra rate support grants to local councils but to ensure that we have a successful renewable energy scheme and that we get solar panels out there. It is not a back-door way of funding extra support.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything my right hon. Friend is saying, but surely the problem is that all the schemes that subsidise renewable energy tend to distort the market and have perverse consequences, and therefore perhaps the Duke of Edinburgh had a point over the weekend.
Chris Huhne
The Duke of Edinburgh was not, I think, talking about solar panels, and I dread to think what his views are on them. He certainly made his views on wind pretty clear. I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the issue of distortions to the market because, curiously, solar photovoltaics are a clear example of a highly successful world market. The right hon. Member for Don Valley was talking about Sharp Solar as though it was dependent on the UK, but more than three quarters of the production in Wrexham goes overseas to the rest of Europe. We have already heard that the funding is exactly in line with that in Germany. The Chinese are exporting dramatic amounts of solar panels and what is fascinating, exciting and positive about the industry is the fact that in the long run—
Chris Huhne
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who has been very patient.
The key point I want to make, which was drawn to my attention by the US Energy Secretary Steve Chu, is that almost uniquely among the renewable energy forms, solar panels are reducing in price by an average of 6% a year. As a result of that technological trend, which is a bit like the fall in the cost of computer memory that many of us will be familiar with, this area will have enormous potential in the long run. The argument for putting the industry on a more sustainable basis so that it can grow solidly and reliably with a tariff that reflects the fall in the underlying costs means that we will be in a position, when the costs of solar fall to grid parity, to make major and substantial increases in solar installation. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that this is a waste of time. The world market is working, but the scheme has been thrown out by the fact that we have had a dramatic fall in the costs of solar panels in the past 18 months. Unfortunately, the scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government did not have the automatic reduction that it should have done.
At this point, I shall give way to my very patient and hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).
Andrew Percy
I am almost too tired to stand up now, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. It is precisely because of the arguments he has outlined that the Labour Government in New South Wales in Australia cut their tariff by two thirds.
I want to put a question to the Secretary of State on behalf of my constituents at Alexander Electrical Services. They support change and have said very clearly that they accept there has to be change, but one thing they want from the Secretary of State is more of an explanation about the December cut-off date.
Chris Huhne
I come back to the point that if we had not acted quickly on this we would have had a situation in which every installation at the old tariff rate would have meant two fewer installations at the new tariff rate. That would have meant massively over-subsidising when we could have got the deployment at the new tariff rate. There is no doubt about that. We have had many e-mails from reliable, long-standing solar installers who recognise that the scheme needed to be changed. They—particularly the reliable installers—want it to be put on a sustainable basis that will give them the ability to grow sustainably.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is the rate of change that is concerning people, particularly in rural areas. A small domestic development of some constituents of mine would have been under threat had they not managed to make the cut-off. They are now looking for retrospective planning permission. Will the Minister look again at the situation, particularly in rural areas where getting basic parts can be a problem? Will he give more time before he introduces this draconian cut-off rate in rural areas?
Chris Huhne
I have to say that, to some extent, I rest my case in that regard. A substantial scheme that requires planning permission in the Western Isles will clearly be one for which, arguably, the solar yield will be very substantial. I do not know whether that is the case, but I come back to the point that if we do not deal with this issue we will deprive the industry of future growth prospects. The more we pay out at the higher rate the less we pay out at the lower rate. That is why we proposed the date of 12 December—to give well-advanced projects six clear weeks in which to finalise and thus receive the current tariffs. We are consulting on this and we are open-minded about it. Hon. Members should remember that schemes after that reference date will continue to receive the old tariff all the way through to April—only then will they go on to the new tariff. We are seeking views on this and on our other proposals, including the one to strengthen the link between FITs, energy efficiency and a new multi-installation tariff frame.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Huhne
I must make a bit more progress.
We are also considering whether more could be done to enable genuine community projects to benefit fully from FITs. We will provide more detail on that in the second consultation on the comprehensive review.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
On that point, can the Secretary of State, first, give us a reassurance that local authority social housing, or at least social housing, will be included in that? Secondly, if there are problems with the budget, perhaps he could get some money from the nuclear budget.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend is mistaken if he believes that there is public subsidy in the nuclear budget. Nuclear power will be built without public subsidy, and I believe that position is shared across the House. I assure him, from the Dispatch Box as someone who is a very clear guardian, that, as we are spending £2 billion clearing up the nuclear industry mess from previous generations, there is someone here who has a very strong incentive to make sure that that never happens again.
On social housing, I have already said that we will consult on whether it is appropriate to have a separate tariff for genuine community projects. Those who have already installed solar PV and who are registered for feed-in tariffs will not be affected. The right hon. Member for Don Valley suggested that they might be but that is completely incorrect and is scaremongering. I can totally reassure anyone that this approach is consistent with our long-standing principle in the House of not making retrospective changes. We have to strike a delicate balance between acting quickly, for the reasons that I have given, and allowing people to finish work that is well under way. That means enabling well-progressed projects—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I inform the House that 29 Members have submitted a request to speak in the debate? We will clearly not be able to hear from everyone, but if there are constant interventions, we will hear from even fewer Members than anticipated.
Chris Huhne
I will take some more interventions with your forgiveness, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will try to make progress too.
A consultation is under way, and we will consider carefully all the representations that are made, including on the proposed reference date and how best to implement an energy efficiency requirement. It is not the case, for example, that large numbers of people will be excluded, because it is possible to insist on a C rating. Many people could easily be upgraded to a C rating, which would increase the market enormously. Furthermore, we could make solar panels available to anyone who is prepared to take part in the green deal when it is launched and which, of course, is cost-free to the household. We will look at that, and we will announce our final intentions early in the new year. Our proposal is that the revised tariffs should take effect from 1 April 2012.
The decision to consult on revised tariffs and the proposed reference date was not taken lightly. I am sure that Members from all parts of the House agree that increasing the share of locally generated renewables is a good thing, not just for our carbon reduction targets, but for households and communities. However, spending the best part of £1 billion of public money to support soaring profits for one part of the energy sector is not the way to build a lasting low-carbon economy. It will not deliver more renewable energy or help more households. As that public money comes directly from the purses of bill payers, including people in fuel poverty, it is not the fairest way either. Many Members will have received letters from companies offering solar PV. Many of those letters are written in defence of the industry, but they are guided by a passion, quite rightly, for clean green energy as well as a stronger bottom line.
I am as disappointed as many of my constituents that the feed-in tariff scheme was not properly set up. To paraphrase the right hon. Member for Don Valley, we would not have to cut so far or so fast if the policy had been properly costed to begin with. A little more foresight then would have gone a long way now. I have described the mistakes that were made by my predecessor in failing to take into account what was happening in the marketplace, but another mess that we had to clear up after the Labour Government left office was the business-scale scheme, which was going off like a rocket. We had to deal with that earlier this year because, under the proposals introduced by the Labour Government, it was assumed that businesses were too stupid to respond to a substantial real return and would not install any solar PV for three years. If we had not acted, half of Devon and Cornwall would have been under PV panels.
Mr Russell Brown
Will the Secretary of State say something about remote rural areas, because I have a constituent who has had solar panels installed but, because of her remote location, she has to pay a further £21,000 for an off-grid connection? There is absolutely no way in which her supplier can connect her before 12 December.
Chris Huhne
By all means, the hon. Gentleman should give us the details of exactly that sort of issue, which we will consider as part of the consultation. However, his constituent might have been better served if there was a proper energy efficiency audit of her home so that she could make substantial energy savings beforehand.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
You don’t know what his constituent did.
Chris Huhne
We do not, but we do know that under the scheme promoting solar PVs or the scheme that was launched by the Labour Government in April 2010, there was a link to energy efficiency.
Chris Huhne
Opposition Members are getting terribly shirty about this, but there was a link to energy efficiency and that link was abolished with the introduction of the scheme by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in April 2010. We need to deal with that.
There are more efficient ways to clean our energy supplies and grow our green industries than using consumers’ energy bills to support one industry at well over the market rate. If we did nothing, by 2014-15 feed-in tariffs for solar PV would cost consumers about £1 billion a year. If we are to succeed in building a low-carbon economy, we must make sure that we show people that we are committed to value for money.
It is precisely because this Government are committed to a sustainable, long-term future for clean energy that we propose revising tariffs now. Encouraging a minority of companies to feast on bumper profits for six months, swallowing up the entire feed-in tariff budget for a four-year period, would be the acme of short-termism. It is worth keeping things in perspective.
Andrew Bridgen
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House what he believes the Labour Government meant when they said in a consultation document on feed-in tariffs that they did not expect to lower the tariff levels for new projects over the years? Given that, does he not detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the comments from the Opposition Front Bench?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the previous Government had bothered to find out how well-managed feed-in tariffs are run in countries such as Germany, they would have built in an automatic system which brought the tariffs down in line with the fall in costs, but they did not. The result was a massive over-compensation.
Contrary to the claims that we have heard from the Opposition, we are not shutting down an industry, which is what would happen if the money ran out. The revised tariffs will provide inflation-proofed returns for 25 years of around 5%. That remains competitive with other investment opportunities. A householder would still be able to get a 4.5% real post-tax return. This compares well, for example, with the 0.5% post-tax real return currently available through index-linked National Savings bonds.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Government are right to cut the tariff. That is the message that I have heard from many in the solar sector, but the 12 December deadline is causing panic. There is no doubt about that, so I ask the Government to publish as soon as possible some kind of cost-benefit analysis showing what the cost would be of sticking to the April deadline and what the cost to the sector would be of a 12 December deadline. That is the issue causing most fear. It is hard to exaggerate the level of that fear.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I have dealt with that issue in response to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). This is such a movable feast that every time we do a projection, we find that the budget is being eaten up even more rapidly, so we have put out, in the impact assessment, a very clear projection on the basis of the knowledge that we had when the consultation was launched about what would happen overall—that is, a very substantial increase in the overall budget and a £26 increase in household bills. The revisions that we have done since then suggest that, if anything, things will be moving even more rapidly.
By the way, the returns still compare favourably with the returns intended when the scheme was set up. Our proposals are the difference between windfall profits from double-digit returns and a reasonable return—double-digit returns that would bring into the industry all sorts of curious people who never had any previous interest in it and who were operating tax avoidance schemes to raise money to invest in the industry. The scheme had been growing dangerously unbalanced. We are working to put it back on an even keel. I do not accept that putting right the feed-in tariffs scheme undermines confidence, for the reasons that I have given.
Aside from those such as electricians and scaffolders who have branched out into solar PV installation alongside other employment, our analysis suggests that the number of full-time equivalent jobs in the solar industry is between 8,000 and 14,000. We do not wish to see a single company stop trading or a single job lost, but we cannot continue to prop up unreasonable profits with consumer cash. Jobs created by a bubble of excessive returns and paid for by consumer energy bills are simply unsustainable. Companies that have prepared themselves accordingly are likely to continue. As I have said, I have not come across a single person in the industry who contests the fact that we needed to act, although we did not hear that loud and clear before we acted, contrary to what various Opposition Members have said. Companies that were going all out with installations for the next few months with no plans beyond that will be in a position that is only slightly different from what would otherwise have been the case.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Secretary of State makes a compelling case for the need for change, but will he consider a concession for those businesses that have already paid a deposit? Pennywell farm in my constituency aims to be the first carbon-neutral tourist attraction in the country and has already received a gold business award for energy conservation. It has already paid a 10% deposit, but the costs of meeting the 12 December deadline will increase its costs by 11% and it faces great difficulty as a result.
Chris Huhne
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and she is not contesting the fact that there will still be a positive return. That comes back to the point I was making. People might not make as much money as they thought they would, because the scheme had not been brought into line with the fall in the cost of panels, but they will still make a positive return. My Department’s key objective is to ensure that we make the transition to a low-carbon economy, not to provide excessive subsidies where they are not warranted by the action that is to be taken. If she would like to write to me with the details of her example, we will take it into account as part of the consultation. I repeat that it is a genuine consultation.
The revised tariffs will allow the feed-in tariffs to work in the way they were intended to, supporting the industry and jobs in the long term, rather than burning brightly for a few short months before fading away. The right hon. Member for Don Valley might urge on us the attractions of becoming a sort of policy Catherine-wheel in which we are all fizz, but we do not particularly want to be followed by all phutt, which is exactly what we would have if the Labour party was to have its suggestion. I am sure that Members will join me in supporting long-term ambition across the whole green economy, rather than windfalls for the few.
The Government are committed to supporting sustainable low-carbon energy, but we cannot continue to write blank cheques. By bringing solar PV returns in line with other investment opportunities, we are guaranteeing the success of the feed-in tariff scheme as a whole, which will mean more renewable energy delivered to more households in a sustainable way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A great number of Members wish to take part in the debate, so a five-minute limit has been introduced for Back-Bench contributions.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure once again to follow the Secretary of State, but I am afraid I cannot resist referring to his last remark on policy Catherine-wheels. He is the man who said that the nuclear industry was flawed and should not continue, but today he is Mr Nuclear. He said that solar panel feed-in tariffs were not ambitious enough, but now he says that they are flawed and too ambitious. He is the undisputed champion of flip-flops. Today he has told us that he is looking after the interests of the consumer, but he is doing exactly the opposite.
Since entering the House, I have been a consistent supporter of nuclear energy, renewable energy and energy efficiency as a package. I see no contradiction in that whatsoever. It will help consumers in the short term and the environment in the long term, which is what proper policy is about.
We do not have much time today, but, because of the country’s anger at the policy changes, we are here today, arguing the case for consumers. I shall read out a few examples, because they show how out of touch the Secretary of State and Government are on this important issue.
It was not just the industry, but ordinary individuals who took this Government on trust, and they have broken it. The Liberal Democrats know that, because they argued that the scheme was not ambitious enough. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is in the Chamber, said that the then Government were not going far enough.
Albert Owen
I am happy to take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. I wanted to wake him up and stir him so that I could get an extra minute and listen to his remarks. Is he prepared to intervene?
Albert Owen
I shall take an intervention first from the right hon. Gentleman’s previous boss.
Simon Hughes
I did press for a scheme when we were in opposition, and a scheme was introduced, but it was not adequate. I support the fact that it has to be reviewed because of the take-up, and the answer lies in the Secretary of State’s answer, which I heard very clearly. It is to look at a new community tariff, to be announced as soon as possible, which I heard him say will be in January.
Albert Owen
But the right hon. Gentleman said in opposition that the rates were not ambitious enough. Those were very his words, and he has now done a flip-flop on that. Yes, we need a proper review; of course we do, because the industry is calling for it and everybody is calling for it, but it should be done on a sliding scale, not at the rate that the Secretary of State describes.
Chris Huhne
Will the hon. Gentleman please admit to the House that there has been a colossal fall in the cost of panels and, as a result, an enormous increase in the real rate of return? That is what has changed in the real world. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made those points, the world has changed. Government Members have responded to that; Opposition Members do not appear to have done so.
Albert Owen
The Secretary of State has not read the Opposition’s motion or listened to what the shadow Secretary of State said about the need for a sliding scale.
I shall read out three examples, because they speak not just for my constituents, but for constituents throughout the country. A Mr Jones wrote to me this month, saying:
“I am writing to you as a retired NHS employee, who recently decided to invest my pension lump sum monies into clean energy and have just installed PV solar panel system on my house. My decision was based on the Government’s existing tariffs and estimated returns on the substantial investment and proceeded with the installation in the last week of October. I was unaware of the Government’s consultation document before proceeding. I only recently heard about the changes on a news bulletin”.
He believes that the process is deceitful, because it cuts off before the consultation period is done. He says that he understands the rationale for changes, as do all of us, but the proposed changes will be made without any meaningful public consultation. Indeed, the Secretary of State has suggested that individual write in, and that the consultation changes will be made on a case-by-case basis. What a sham—for the Government of the day to say, “We will look at individual cases and maybe give a bit of leeway.” People want a proper strategy and consistency.
Another constituent, a young person who has been self-employed for 10 years—the kind of person whom the Government say they want to help—came to see me. He has moved from various installation projects, including central heating systems, to the PV system, and he has employed extra people. He says:
“I am writing regarding the recent feed in tariff problems as I am sure you are aware of. I have had to lay off two installers last week for two weeks so far”,
and he cannot see himself bringing them back. His office assistant is, he says,
“down to two days a week from five days”,
and he cannot honestly see his company trading: it will cease trading because of the proposals. That is the kind of reaction we are getting from communities.
A third person who wrote to me put across her point straightforwardly, as Anglesey people do, saying:
“I was horrified to see the high handed fashion in which the Government has eliminated the…Micro Generation Industry. By…slashing the value of the electricity feed-in tariff, they are effectively ending the provision of free solar panels to the electorate and endangering the jobs of tens of thousands of people. Not since the Thatcher Government of the 1980’s have those in power set out to put an end to a sector of the economy overnight.”
That was not a Labour supporter who was known to me, but an ordinary constituent who took the trouble to write in. That is the situation that people are finding themselves in, and it is the scale of the downgrading of the tariffs that is concerning everybody.
I say to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who is going to wind up the debate, that he should listen to the debate—I do not think he is listening at the moment. He should not just give the speech that has been written for him by civil servants, but he should listen to the debate and listen to what the people of this country are saying. They understand the need for deficit reduction, but they also have trust in Governments, and when they enter a scheme, they want to see it through. They want to help the country’s economy and create jobs, and jobs have indeed been created. They want to save the economy, but they also want to save the environment. That was why the scheme was set up. Yes, it needs to be reviewed, but the Government are destroying it, and I ask them to think again.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. Right at the beginning, I want to nail my flag to the pole as being very pro-solar. I believe that solar power offers us a great opportunity to change how we generate power, in a green way that protects the environment and lowers our carbon footprint. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I have been very keen to push forward schemes such as solar and anaerobic digestion, which also offers us a great opportunity. Those schemes provide energy without having a great impact on neighbouring sites.
I am keen to set out the position in which the Government found themselves when they came to power. After 13 years of a Labour Government, we faced the real prospect of an energy crisis. We risked a gap in the supply to the general market and in this country’s ability to find energy to keep the lights on in our homes and ensure that our businesses can thrive and move forward. It is a damning fact that the previous Government did not grasp the nettle and sort out this country’s energy supply to ensure that we can operate securely.
To that end, I probably part company from the Secretary of State in saying that I think that the real answer to delivering large-scale energy production will be nuclear. The previous Government should have taken quicker action to deliver it. Coming from the constituency of Sherwood, and from the former coalfields of Nottingham, I believe that the other way in which we can solve the crisis is through carbon capture and storage, using coal-fired power in a green way so that it does not increase our carbon footprint.
The most important point to recognise is that a lack of action is simply not an option. We cannot continue the way we are going. We are a victim of the enormous success of the feed-in tariffs scheme. People have really embraced the opportunity to put solar panels on their own homes. Unfortunately, we pitched it at an unsustainable level, and the only option is to reduce the subsidy to a level that still allows the industry to continue and people to deliver solar panels.
Opposition Members have referred to what happens in Germany. The simple fact is that we are reducing our support to the same level that exists in Germany, and the industry is sustainable there. I am not an astronomer, but my understanding is that we share the same sun, and the strength of the sunlight is the same. If the industry can thrive in Germany at the same level of subsidy, I believe it can be sustainable in this country. The truth is that time will tell whether we are right or wrong. I believe that as we move forward, the industry will carry on and people will still be able to make use of the opportunities provided.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about Germany. He will perhaps be aware that, in the last year of the previous Government, Germany was getting approximately 10% of its energy from renewables, while we were getting 2.5%. We have a lot to learn from Germany.
Mr Spencer
I agree with my hon. Friend. We can learn from some of the things Germany got right and some of the things it got wrong. That is the way to move forward.
Basically, there is a simple calculation. We need to get more solar panels for each pound we spend, and the Secretary of State’s suggestions would deliver more panels per pound. That is the simple calculation we have to make. The other thing we need to do is bring the technology into the mainstream.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
One of the issues the Opposition have been discussing today is that of jobs and lost jobs. Clearly, if twice as many panels are being built sustainably in the longer term, there will be a lot more jobs.
Mr Spencer
That is absolutely true.
As I was starting to outline, the other thing we need to do is to bring the technology into the mainstream. This is no longer some green dream. Solar panels are a real opportunity to deliver a credible energy source to our homes. Many companies that focus solely on solar power have been established, but we need to tackle the matter by ensuring that normal contractors—electricians and plumbers—look at such technologies as an alternative.
At the moment, an example of what happens is this. Mrs Jones’s boiler will break down and a plumber will come along. If the plumber does not have the expertise to say, “These are the alternative renewable sources of energy that you can look at,” she will have a normal gas-fired boiler fitted in her home. We need to bring such technologies into the mainstream, so that regular electricians and plumbers have the experience to deliver them. I hope that, as the scheme is successful, they will be able to tap into it and deliver that. I am not just talking about specialised solar companies, but normal, everyday contractors. That is starting to happen and will continue.
I am very conscious of the time, so I shall summarise the matter quickly and leave my colleagues time to speak. We inherited an energy supply system that was in tatters. We have had to tackle that at the same time as greening our energy supply and lowering our carbon footprint. That is an enormous challenge. We have made some very good progress, but there is a way to go and, under the current Administration and with the support of the Secretary of State, we can make great progress.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I share the concerns of Labour Members. The shadow Secretary of State made a very powerful speech, but I want to concentrate on a constituents’ case because the Secretary of State does not seem to think that the December deadline is a problem. However, my constituents’ case is a perfect illustration of why it is a problem.
On 2 November, my constituents learned that the Department of Energy and Climate Change had changed the date from 31 March 2012 to 8 December 2011 for reducing the feed-in tariff rate for solar panels fitted to domestic properties from 43%. At the 43% FIT level, they calculated that they could borrow £12,000 to install solar panels and that they would break even on the loan repayments. The week before, they signed a contract for solar panels to be installed before 31 March 2012 and paid just over £7,000 as a deposit. At that time, there was no indication that DECC was about to make a sudden change to the date for introducing the revised FIT rate.
My constituents immediately feared that the contractor may not be able to have the system installed and their registration complete within the new time frame set by DECC. If that happened, they would be trapped in a contract from which they would be making a monthly loss that they cannot afford for the next 25 years. They would not have signed up to the contract if DECC had made it known that it was about to change the time frame for introducing the revised rate. My constituents acted in good faith and believe that the original tariff agreement to 31 March should be honoured or maintained at that level for people such as them who have already signed contracts and paid significant deposits with no guarantee that work and registration will be completed before 8 December. That should be taken into consideration. It was completely unreasonable to give five weeks’ notice of such a significant change at a time when suppliers and installers are exceptionally busy meeting the demands of the original 31 March deadline.
Following this shock, my constituents have been working closely with panel suppliers and installation contractors to complete the work prior to the new cut-off date. Luckily for them, the work has been completed, the system is installed, and registration documents have been submitted to their energy supplier. The registration documents were sent to the energy company by special delivery on Saturday 19 November, and they breathed a sigh of relief because this gave, or so they thought, plenty of time for registration prior to the December cut-off. The energy company has now informed them that it cannot guarantee that the registration documents will be processed prior to the December cut-off date because it is receiving unanticipated levels of rushed applications to make the new deadline, and that has resulted in a significant slowing in the registration process.
My constituents believe that this is, by default, another way for DECC to ensure that fewer people are able to receive the previously agreed tariff, and the Secretary of State openly admitted that in his speech. They rightly believe that this looks like another example of people entering into contracts with this Government only to have the goalposts moved without due consideration or proper consultation and find that they are left to take the financial hit. They were already in the position that 60% of the costs had been paid to the contractor and they could not reasonably cancel the contract. Having fast-tracked the installation process, they are now faced with another barrier to registration whereby, through the Government’s action, they will be tied into a green energy contract rather than breaking even. This leaves them with making a significant loss for the next 25 years, through no fault of their own. They tried to do the right thing; perhaps the Government should now do the right thing and change the deadline.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
The introduction of the feed-in tariff came about after a long campaign by the parties now in government and by many people out in the community who had seen the gains that had been made in Germany. We keep coming back to the German example. I am sure that any German people watching this debate will feel very smug that much of it is about what they have achieved. I was a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee during the previous Parliament, and we went over there to look at what had been achieved in Baden-Württemburg and Freiburg, as well as in Stuttgart, where the panels were being produced.
Labour Members on the Committee—who at that time were Government Members—were very impressed but despairing that their party would not listen. I remember the debates in this place when the feed-in tariff was raised repeatedly, and some Labour Back Benchers were bravely standing up and defying the Whips to argue for it. We have to remember that were it not for what happened in another place we would not have made the progress towards the feed-in tariff that we have. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) talks about the wonderful achievements of her Government and her conversion to believing in the feed-in tariff, but whatever she says about the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks)—
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it was 60 Labour Members signing an amendment and negotiating hard within our party to get signed up to feed-in tariffs that led the Labour Government to introduce the legislation?
Dan Rogerson
I have already paid tribute to Labour Back Benchers who were arguing for the tariff—but I am talking about Labour Front Benchers and the official policy of the then Government until that point, which was to reject it. Obviously, that is a matter of historical record.
We now have the feed-in tariff in operation. As a Member of Parliament for Cornwall, where there are huge possibilities for the solar industry and fantastic community groups are coming together in the co-operative sector to drive this forward, I am very pleased that we have seen such growth. However, I am looking to Ministers to give a positive and consistent message on solar, because there is confusion out there, and that is damaging. The Secretary of State made a strong speech today setting out a clear direction. However, confidence has undoubtedly been affected by, as the Secretary of State would say, the success of the scheme, because there has been such a high take-up and high capacity.
Stephen Lloyd
On that subject, does my hon. Friend agree that one concern for many solar and renewables companies who have bought in to the green agenda is that they never know for sure whether the Government will change their mind midway through? Does he agree that this decision, though economically understandable, may feed that concern?
Dan Rogerson
That is the thrust of what has been said by several Government Members, and indeed Opposition Members, who have raised concerns. We accept the need to act, but we must ensure that there is now a consistent vision so that the message gets across.
I am excited about the possibilities. I believe that in the longer term, the message will be much better in terms of how much will be added to the bills of those who cannot take advantage of feed-in tariffs, because we will see a break-up of the small oligopoly of the big six energy producers and there will be a far more dispersed system. That will ultimately provide more competition and drive down price. Clearly the Secretary of State has been looking at this economic model, and he has to consider how much money is in the budget. I advise him to continue to focus on costs being put on to other domestic bills. I think that we can be far more positive about the long-term implications of this policy for all energy bill payers. If we have a far more diverse mix, it will create further competition and drive down prices, or at least will resist the upward trend in prices that we have had because of the issues with fossil fuels.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree, if not with Opposition Members, with that very good group within the Liberal Democrats, the Green Liberal Democrats, and with Welsh Liberal Democrat Assembly Members, who have written to the Secretary of State to ask him to delay this decision to ensure that there is an effective transition. That seems to be wholly good sense as a bare minimum. Will he agree with them and then support us in the Lobby to vote for the motion?
Dan Rogerson
As for how I will vote, I have looked at the motion and I am waiting to hear the Government’s position in the summing up. I have a number of issues, such as the need for certainty and the effect of the cliff edge in December, which other hon. Members have talked about. That is the real problem for investors. It would be very welcome if, in looking at the consultation, the Government could come up with any means of tapering that effect, particularly to help the community schemes and social housing schemes that are considering exciting ways to involve tenants and whole communities in taking advantage of the scheme. Those are people who might not be able to do so on their own, because they are not capital-rich enough.
Chris Huhne
We would like to do that, but the legal basis for doing so is simply not there in the scheme that was introduced by the last Labour Government.
Chris Huhne
Well, we could do that, but it would have to be part of the longer-term consultation on the comprehensive review, which we will carry out.
Dan Rogerson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, as far as it goes. I hope that a huge amount of effort will be devoted to putting that problem right very quickly.
As other Members want to speak and as I have taken so many interventions, I will be brief. One other issue that I want to focus on, which has not been raised, is the concentration on energy efficiency for people who want to take advantage of the tariff. That is hugely problematic in areas such as mine that have older housing stock, which it will be very difficult to get up to the standard. I do not think that there is—
Dan Rogerson
I will not give way, but the Minister will have a chance to respond in his summing up.
Dan Rogerson
I will not, because I need to complete this point.
I do not think that we need to connect this matter with energy efficiency so intimately. In the green deal and other schemes, there are advantages and pressures to encourage people to consider energy efficiency measures. I think that linking these things is unhelpful, particularly for people in areas such as mine.
Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to move forward with this scheme and the vision for solar that he has set out, I urge him to consider other means for getting the sector to grid price parity, so that we can have confidence that the sector will continue to grow in a sustainable way.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate. I wonder whether some Government Members live in the real world. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) thinks the Germans will watch the debate, but I wonder how many will. He seemed to get excited because people will be worse off than they are now. The Secretary of State seems quite happy that jobs in the industry will go, and tells us that the industry will grow when everything else is not growing.
We should get back to what this is all about, which is looking after the people who need looking after. Thirteen and a half thousand of my constituents border on fuel poverty. I care about them more than I care about whether solar power is put into houses or whether the money for that is right or wrong. For those people to get their energy, and to ensure they can afford it, we must have solar power, wind farms and everything else that can send power into their homes to help to keep the lights on and give them cheaper energy.
John Robertson
I am not going to give way. Government Members give way to waste time. Let them do it. We will make sure that we say what needs to be said. They can play games.
I should like to move on to fuel poverty, which is what I believe we are here to talk about, and people who will die. I asked the Secretary of State earlier whether the tax taken from the big six and the reduction in the money for solar power are worth the 2,700 lives that will be lost this year owing to the Government’s energy policies, but he never answered me. I am willing to allow him to intervene if he wants to tell me that his policies are worth more than 2,700 lives. We all hear that deafening silence. The money that the Government get from the tax and from reducing solar energy will amount to 2,700 lives. That is what the Hills report says, and the Secretary of State agreed with me when he was questioned about it.
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is completely misguided to quote the Hills report, which I commissioned because I want a real effort made to combat fuel poverty, which was not happening in the past few years; we saw fuel poverty increase under the Labour Government. He is quite wrong to say that I am not concerned about the big six. We want a competitive market. That is why we are introducing extra consumer safeguards, and why we are making the retail and wholesale markets more competitive.
John Robertson
I can only use the right hon. Gentleman’s own words. He told me that the Hills report said that 27,000 extra people would die this winter, and that 10% of those deaths would be down to the Government’s energy policies. That will be in Hansard for hon. Members to read for themselves. I asked him whether lives were worth more than the tax money, and he never answered me.
At the end of the day, people will make the difference. The Government cannot be trusted. If people cannot trust the Government or what they are saying, how can they move forward? There lies the biggest problem. The 13,500 pensioners who are approaching fuel poverty in my constituency, and the disabled people who need extra help, will not be able to work out whether they can trust the Government to see them through this winter. Everything that has been mentioned is for next year, not this winter, but we need to solve the problems this winter.
The money spent on solar power would have helped in the long term to keep people in jobs, to stimulate growth in industry and to get money circulating in the country, but the Government are cutting it. They want to halve the amount of money that would circulate. They want to halve everything. My hon. Friends the Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) told us about their constituents who, through no fault of their own, will be caught up in this system and will find that they cannot afford what they thought they were going to get, although they did do their risk management.
When the Secretary of State was having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, I asked him how he knew that the person in question had not done a risk assessment or worked out the financial situation, and he replied, “Well, I don’t.” So there we have it: we have a Secretary of State who makes policy on the hoof and statements that contradict my hon. Friend, who knows his constituent and knows the situation, and says that my hon. Friend is wrong—and then, when asked from a sedentary position, “How do you know the constituent didn’t do that?” turns round and says, “Well, I don’t.” He is basically saying, “I just don’t care.”
We see it more and more. We have a Government who always use the excuse, “It’s somebody else’s fault. A big boy did it and ran away.” That is their modus operandi. That is what they do. It is always somebody else’s fault and never their fault, but unfortunately it is the people who Labour Members, in particular, represent who will suffer at the end of the day. I want to ensure that the 2,700 extra people who might die this winter do not, but the sad truth is that this Government do not care, and never will care. That is why the people on this side of the House are better than them.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). I agree that we should focus on the costs and budgets of ordinary people, but I have sympathy for the businesses that were lured to invest by the promise of unsustainable subsidies. I have neither sympathy nor respect for the Labour Ministers who set up the scheme knowing full well that the subsidies were unsustainable, and I deeply regret the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, in the previous Parliament and this Parliament, took so long to recognise, at least partially, the folly of the scheme.
No one in this place has any excuse for failing to recognise that the subsidies were never remotely justified. The House insists that when a piece of legislation is published, we publish alongside it an impact assessment of the costs and benefits, so that the House will not be so foolish as to go ahead with a measure whose costs exceed its benefits. Have any Labour Members actually read the impact assessment accompanying the scheme?
Mr Lilley
Then the hon. Lady should be even more ashamed of supporting it. The impact assessment published by the Labour Government when the scheme was originally introduced calculated the net present value of the scheme’s future costs to be about £8.6 billion, yet the Labour Government also measured the benefits of using solar rather than hydrocarbons and calculated the direct benefits in the shape of electricity and the indirect benefits—far more important—through the reduction in the damage caused by global warming owing to fewer CO2 emissions. They calculated that the net present value of all the future benefits, direct and indirect, compared with the costs of £8.6 billion, would be just £400 million. In other words, we knew when we introduced this scheme that the costs were 20 times the assessed benefits, but we went ahead anyway.
I brought that fact to the attention of the House, but more importantly it was brought to the world’s attention by George Monbiot, a distinguished campaigner—unlike me—for measures to stop global warming, when he wrote:
“The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2 billion, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scheme be expanded.”
We knew when we introduced the scheme that it would be nonsense even if it went according to plan. It was self-evidently unsustainable. Even halving it today means that we will merely waste £4 billion, or 90% of the expected expenditure.
When I have raised these issues, Ministers have employed two defences. The first is that the impact assessment excluded many knock-on effects. If it did they should have introduced a new one, because impact assessments are supposed to include all the indirect effects. It should not have been signed off by the hapless Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Then Ministers pray in aid the fact that the cost of solar energy is declining. They attribute that decline to the scheme, but none of it is due to the scheme, and the idea that our scheme will in any way accelerate the decline in costs worldwide is ridiculous. If something like Moore’s law does indeed apply, so that costs are likely to halve every couple of years, that is a reason for not investing now, but instead waiting until it is economic to do so, which will not be long. If we invest in expensive stuff when inexpensive stuff is going to be available in a few years, we are wasting money.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the background information, which is especially useful for us new Members, who were not here when the policy was discussed previously. He is highlighting an extremely important point. The Government have only so much money to invest in new sustainable energy. It is all the more important to ensure that it is spent wisely, otherwise there will be no opportunity to bring other technologies to market.
Mr Lilley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the argument that such investment creates jobs is—as the Secretary of State will know, being a distinguished economist—completely bogus. We have a fixed amount of money. We can either spend it on gas, oil or nuclear, or we can spend it on solar. If we spend £8 billion on either, we will create roughly the same number of jobs. Spending £8 billion on solar means that many fewer jobs in gas, nuclear, coal and oil. We have not created any net jobs across the economy by means of this subsidy. One never does.
David Mowat
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. In addition to his point about the allocation of £8 billion, is he aware of the recent peer-reviewed research from Imperial college—it was the subject of a Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology note—that said that nuclear power has one third the CO2 emissions per kWh of solar over its life cycle? That is an extraordinary statistic, which goes right to the heart of the policy.
Mr Lilley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. George Monbiot pointed out in his original article that it costs about £3 to save a tonne of CO2 by investing in geothermal energy, and £8 by building a nuclear power station, whereas the scheme that we are talking about costs more like £800 to save a tonne of CO2.
Not only do we not create any net jobs; we also create only a tenth of the amount of electricity by investing £8 billion in solar than we would by investing in nuclear or something else.
Mr Lilley
I am afraid that I will not give way again.
I will remind the House of something that may have escaped hon. Members’ attention. Even if the price comes down dramatically, solar will never be a substitute for other forms of energy. It will always have to be backed up and duplicated by an equal amount of capacity that can perform when solar is not available. It may have escaped the notice of the House, but the sun comes out only in the day. It is not available at night, when it is coldest and we need most energy. The sun is highest in the sky in the summer; it is lowest in the winter, when it is coldest and we need most energy. The sun is often blocked by clouds, and one cannot predict when that will happen. For every megawatt of solar capacity that we install, we have to install an equal gas capacity to back it up and replicate it. Unless we realise that, and abandon the scheme until solar becomes much more economic, we are wasting the nation’s money and, as George Monbiot says, transferring money from poor people’s and ordinary people’s pockets into the hands of richer people.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
If ever there was an example of how not to make an announcement in this House, the announcement of the review of feed-in tariffs is it. The Government tried to slip it out as a written statement, but our ever-vigilant DECC team on the Opposition Front Bench recognised its importance, and managed to get a Minister to the Dispatch Box only by tabling an urgent question. The Government’s code of practice on consultations states that they should last 12 weeks, but this consultation is to last only six weeks, with the changes coming into force nearly two weeks before it finishes. Given the dearth of proposed legislation before the Chamber, I would have expected the Government to allow an oral statement and a full- day debate on the issue—not least to discuss the implied loss of jobs. It would be laughable if it were not so serious.
The change will cost a lot of jobs in this sector, in which up to 30,000 people work. It will remove the opportunity for nine out of 10 households to take advantage of the feed-in tariff to reduce their energy bills at a time of rising fuel poverty. The 12 December deadline is causing planned solar projects nationwide to be shelved and millions of pounds of investment to be lost. A survey by the Renewable Energy Association reveals that 57% of companies now anticipate laying off at least half of their staff, while a third believe that their companies will go under.
Let us take the example of Mr Wayne Richardson, one of my constituents who runs Revolution Power—a small renewable energy company employing 17 people. It has been on the go for about six years. Revolution Power fits photovoltaic units and provides ground and air heat pumps. Mr Richardson tells me that he might have to lay off a third of his staff. He is a young man with a young family; he is an entrepreneur and a trier. We need more Wayne Richardsons in the north-east to promote and protect jobs in the private sector.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that companies such as Romag—a major employer in my constituency that has been in the industry a long time and employs young people and young graduates in its research and development section—recognise the fact that feed-in tariffs are reducing, but are concerned about the shameful way in which this consultation has occurred and the very tight time scale? That is what is going to do them in.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend is right. We all agree that the tariff has to come down, but how it is implemented is important. We need to think about the best way of protecting jobs, particularly in the north-east, where I want to see more private sector jobs available.
Wayne Richardson agrees that the value of the feed-in tariff should be reduced, but the cack-handed way in which the Government have introduced this policy is hurting his company. The early reduction in the feed-in tariffs has created a vacuum in the market. As a consequence, parts and materials are in short supply, making it difficult for projects to be finished before 12 December.
One reason behind the reduction is the falling price of installations. Because of the arbitrary deadline of 12 December, however, the price of equipment is going up. The number of inquiries about PV has decreased by 90%, which does not bode well for the future. The FITs scheme is paid for by a levy on energy companies, which is passed on to consumers and costs, as I understand it, only £1 a year. We should compare that with the situation with wind farms. Eon wants to build 45 wind turbines in the constituency. The subsidy from the consumer in that case is close to £200 a year.
The FIT needs to be reduced, but not by 50% in seven weeks. In Germany, where 50% of all PV units are installed, the tariff was cut by 15% and it is being achieved step by step through negotiations and agreement with the industry. Plenty of time and notice has been allowed. I understand that reductions in the tariff there occur year on year so that the industry and consumers can plan ahead—something this Government are daily proving their inability to do. The fact that so little legislation is before the House proves to me that they have no plan and, I suspect, no future.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
Post-privatisation, more than a dozen utility companies provided a great deal of energy competition in this country. Sadly, under Labour, however, the energy market consolidated so that we now have, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said, the big six. We also inherited feed-in tariffs in a shambles. It is my belief that the Government’s reform of FITs will protect our energy mix.
As the Secretary of State has pointed out, installation costs of solar photovoltaics have fallen by at least 30% since the FITs scheme began. The Government are controlling the cost of the subsidy because the average installation is now around £9,000—down from £12,000—so the rate of return has shot up.
If the Government’s proposed reforms are introduced, we will mirror Germany’s FITs subsidy levels from January onwards, while still spending £867 million over four years. Money intended to support decentralised energy will not now subsidise energy-inefficient buildings under new energy efficiency requirements, which can only be a good thing. Solar will still be the most subsidised renewable technology, receiving twice the subsidy available for inshore wind. The Government’s changes will also protect consumer energy bills. Labour Members must tell us by how much they would be prepared to increase the average household’s energy bill in order to maintain high tariffs for solar. The amount might be as much as £55 per household.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. It is true that we must make feed-in tariffs more sustainable, although, like many other Members who have spoken, I have concerns about the proposed time scales. Is this not about making the system fairer—fairer for those who are already signed up and going through the process, but also, as my hon. Friend says, fairer for households that are struggling with high energy bills?
Chris Kelly
I agree, but I believe that the consultation timetable is reasonable. I think that people will have time to plan and prepare, and to register installations that are currently under way. In September, 16,000 solar photovoltaic installations were registered, double the number registered in June. There are now 100,000 installations nationally, three times as many as were projected, and the costs of solar PV have fallen by at least a third since the FITs scheme began.
The scheme was designed to encourage deployment of additional small-scale low-carbon electricity generation, particularly by organisations, businesses, communities and individuals who had not traditionally been engaged in the electricity market, many of them in our constituencies. The Government rightly announced the largest reduction in tariffs for the large-scale solar projects. The Government’s proposed FITs reductions for domestic solar energy installations are out for public consultation until 23 December, and are due to come in to effect in April next year. I believe that that is a sensible time scale, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the submissions he receives.
The Government are right to address payments for FITs from more than one PV installation located on different sites under single ownership. I am thinking of the likes of Asda, which was mentioned earlier. I think that 80% of the full subsidy is a sensible level. The scheme we inherited from Labour was based on wildly inaccurate projections and participation, and therefore on entirely unrealistic financial assumptions. Any programme in any Department must be sustainable and based on realistic finances. Without urgent action, the whole FITs budget would be swallowed up by solar alone within months, depriving other renewable technologies of support through FITs. Microgeneration, for instance, is a key part of the energy mix that we will need for future energy security. The FITs subsidy cannot go disproportionately to solar.
Each week beyond 1 April next year on the old subsidy tariff would cost more than £500,000 per day, or about £3.8 million per week. While £867 million over four years is a sustainable subsidy, more than that would be unsustainable. None of these changes is retrospective, and fairness is therefore being safeguarded. There has been a big fall in solar PV costs, and a big increase in the rate of return. That will exhaust the FITs budget unless it is urgently addressed. The rate of return needs to be reduced from 12% to 5%. The irony is that Labour wants millions of families in fuel poverty to subsidise a few thousand well-off people with solar panels by adding up to £55 a year to the average bill, with no reform of the feed-in tariff.
Mr Speaker
Order. With immediate effect, I shall reduce the time for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes in the hope of securing the participation of another colleague.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), not least because it gives me an opportunity to make the point about the six weeks’ notice and the arbitrary date of 12 December—before the official consultation ends—all of which were totally missing from his speech.
North Wales will be deeply affected by these changes. The following points were made in a column in a local newspaper:
“The Government needs to rethink…There could be considerable impact on jobs in North Wales as local electricians as well as local producers for solar panels are preparing to deal with the impact of cancelled orders for work. In Wrexham, major housing projects which included provision for Feed-in Tariffs are now at risk because of the UK Government’s decision.”
Those are not my words, nor are they the words of any Labour party representative; they are the words of the former leader of Wrexham county borough council, who now sits as a Liberal Democrat Member in the Welsh Assembly. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is not present to answer the questions raised by that Liberal Democrat representative.
One business constituent of mine tells me customers are now refusing to go forward with work if it cannot be completed by the arbitrary deadline. He says that what the Minister has done to this industry is atrocious.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme unlocked thousands of pounds of private capital to create jobs in the local economy, and that this Government’s mad decision to impose a cut with six weeks’ notice will not only completely undermine confidence now, but will put future customers off for ever?
Susan Elan Jones
I entirely agree.
Sharp Solar was mentioned earlier. It has made it clear that big contracts, such as that with Wrexham council to install solar panels on 3,000 council houses, are now in doubt. The 900 installations completed before the 12 December deadline are safe, but no decision has been made on whether the others will go ahead. The stock for that work had to be ordered several months ago, however, and Sharp Solar is now stuck with it no matter what happens.
All the political parties agree that there had to be changes, but the changes could have been made in a way that was manageable, and a proper notice period could have been provided. The Government could have got businesses on their side in order to make the changes work. Instead, we have a total mess.
Businesses have tried to tell the Government about the problems the changes will cause them. Wrexham council leaders wrote to the Government to tell them about the impact of the 12 December deadline on their scheme. They received a reply inviting them to respond to the consultation, but that response will be read only after the deadline has passed. That is totally shambolic. North Wales needs a strong solar industry, but I fear that the so-called “greenest Government ever” have kicked the industry fully in the teeth.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I will try to be brief as I know that many Members want to take part in this important debate.
I do not agree with much that the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said—
Nicky Morgan
Exactly. However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about people. We are talking about our constituents: those who generate energy, those who consume energy, and those who are innovators in the industry.
We have all been diligent constituency MPs this afternoon and have mentioned a number of constituents who have contacted us to say they are affected by this issue. I could talk about Mr and Mrs Willett, who have agreed to install a photovoltaic system with an installation date of 9 January 2012. I could talk about the company PG Plumbing and Heating Ltd in my constituency; it wants me to put a question to the Minister, and I will come back to that. I could talk about Loughborough Solar Technologies, which has contacted me, or the company C Gascoigne, which I mentioned when I asked the Minister a question earlier. I could also mention SmartGen. I thought I should mention all of them so that they can say, “Yes, she’s done what she should do as our constituency MP.” They are all affected by this decision, and they all have questions for the Minister. However, the key point is that this is ultimately about people—about people when they come to pay their energy bills, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) said.
All the political parties have agreed that there was a need for change. The feed-in tariff scheme as left to us by the previous Government did not add up. The shadow Secretary of State said there would have been a review, but as the Secretary of State pointed out, the last Government had not planned to undertake that review until 2013, which would have been too late.
What do we disagree on? Who is at fault. Is the need for change the fault of consumers who are prepared to generate energy and who wanted to install solar panels? Is it the fault of the companies that have taken advantage of the generous scheme that was on offer? No, the fact that we are having to change the scheme and affect the constituents who have contacted me as well as many others is the fault of the previous Government, who left us with a wholly unsustainable system.
Nicky Morgan
I am not going to take any interventions. I have been asked to be brief and it is only fair that I should be so that other hon. Members can speak.
This is the fault of the previous Government and the one word that was missing, as always, from the shadow Secretary of State’s speech—as it is from those of any shadow Secretary of State—was the word “sorry”. She should have said sorry to those consumers who face higher bills, who thought they had agreed things and who are now having to deal with the date of the cut-off and the changes to the tariff.
The House needs to discuss how to ensure that there is a sustainable system so that we have certainty for tariffs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, it is not the Government’s role to support bubbles. Unfortunately, when we are left a bubble by the previous Government, this Government have to burst it. We have to face the realities of the situation and we will potentially get it in the neck, as we have with the other decisions we have had to take, for dealing with the mess left to us by them.
I have some points for clarification. First, will the Minister confirm whether the cut-off date in December is the date of installation or the date when the application for the tariff has been processed? Secondly, I and other Members would appreciate some explanation of how the consultation dates work. Obviously, we have been given the date of 12 December and the consultation closes after that. It is worth addressing that point. Finally, I mentioned the company Loughborough Solar Technologies, which would appreciate a clear commitment from the Government to the industry—
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Like so many others, I am deeply concerned by the Government’s proposals for green energy and the devastating impact the cuts to feed-in tariffs could have on thousands of jobs within my constituency and across Britain, not to mention the sheer irony as the Government renege on their commitment to be the greenest Government ever.
In the past year, nearly 200 families within my council boundary have installed solar power. It is a great way for people to make their homes greener and more efficient and to protect themselves from soaring energy prices.
Laura Sandys
I must point out that although Opposition Members are talking about the total collapse of this industry, households will, on average, get £500 tax-free every year. That might not be £1,000, but it is an extraordinary incentive to companies to sell and households to purchase solar panel products.
Mr Clarke
I am glad that the hon. Lady made her point but, if she does not mind, I shall continue to make mine.
Skyline, a local company in my constituency, made representations to me over the weekend. In partnership with the AVC Group, Skyline has recently opened a brand-new purpose-built premises in Shawhead in Coatbridge. The managing director, Mr Robert Bell, explained to me:
“In this new venture Skyline in partnership with the AVC Group are now introducing solar energy sales, installation and advice to our existing business. A new trade counter will be available covering all aspects of aerials, satellite and renewable energy products.
Skyline and the AVC Group share the new premises. This will help consolidate our main business activities and help Skyline to secure more jobs for local people.
Our training facility will also be used by external companies seeking to train their employees in ladder training at special heights underpinned with customer care.”
The level of entrepreneurship exhibited in my constituency is, quite simply, being placed at risk by the Government. Not only are the Government proposing to cut feed-in tariffs by half so that demand for solar power is reduced by a staggering 92%, they want to do so retrospectively. That means that people with businesses who have already invested in solar power will have to abandon their schemes if they cannot afford the new rate.
I suspect that councils up and down the country will have to pull the plug on thousands of solar panel installations for social housing and community projects. We have heard evidence of that this afternoon. I wrote to the chief executive of north Lanarkshire council and a variety of housing associations in an effort to establish the extent of the Government’s cuts to solar power. It is clear that the new regulations imposed by the Government alongside the tariff reduction will make solar energy inaccessible to most people in my constituency.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
One issue to be addressed is that of customers who find themselves halfway through a contract and who will not now get solar power. They will be betwixt and between because they will not have the opportunity of getting that solar power up and running. Is that not a major issue that the Government have not looked at in the consultation?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively, and earlier our hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) highlighted what he has just said.
The Financial Times today reported that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is considering
“new limits...on subsidies for households that install renewable energy...as he looks to defuse anger”
about the cuts. I only hope that his words translate into action, as the Government’s own impact assessment reveals that nine out of 10 households will be locked out of the solar energy market. How can that be justified by the so-called greenest Government ever? I will continue to oppose the devastating impact of their attack on feed-in tariffs and I shall fight for a fairer deal for the people of my constituency who are finding it very difficult to cope with rising energy prices. Yes, the solar industry does need to be regulated and, yes, reductions in tariffs do need to be made as energy becomes cheaper, but not on this scale and not so that it is essentially wiped out as an alternative for the average household and small business. It cannot be right that the Government are hitting people who are trying to do the right thing by cutting their energy bills. Their proposals for feed-in tariffs will hit families, put thousands of jobs at risk and devastate the solar industry. That is the reality of what we are debating. The Liberal Democrats once again find themselves between a rock and a hard place as the Government plough ahead with irresponsible cuts that strike at the very heart of what we are told were their core beliefs. If the coalition Government truly strive to be the greenest Government ever, they cannot seriously expect the public to stand by as the solar industry is cut down in its prime—just as the number of companies operating in solar has risen from 350 to 4,000 and as clean energy jobs have soared from 3,000 to 30,000 since 2010. That would simply be unsustainable and unacceptable, certainly to my constituents and the small companies in my constituency.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister regarding the concerns raised with me by constituents, I shall not list them all this evening. I was very reassured by the Secretary of State’s assurance that the consultation on the proposed changes to the feed-in tariff is genuine. I am sure that he will listen very carefully to all the arguments and read carefully all the comments from my constituents that have been given to him.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I should very much like to ask the Minister to clarify the situation regarding the tariffs and whether they will be retrospective. Mid Devon council in my constituency has 1,800 homes on which it wants to put solar panels. Two thirds of those people are on housing benefit and they would get the benefit of £3 a week off their electricity bill, so I am very concerned about the retrospective side of the tariff.
Sarah Newton
I think my hon. Friend has made his point.
In the few moments I have left, I should like to develop the good points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), who rightly reminded us that the Government have only so much money to give away in subsidies and that they need to support a wide range of sustainable and green ways of producing energy.
Sarah Newton
I am sorry, I will press on so that more Members can speak.
I am concerned that we should not use up all our resources, as we need to support emerging technologies. It is vital that we do not spend all the money on FITs for PVs. The Government have introduced a wide range of really good policies that support the emergence of new technologies in my constituency. For example, recent investment by the regional growth fund in deep geothermal engineering will leverage in £42 million of private sector investment, alongside nearly £1.5 million from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to create the first deep geothermal power station in my constituency.
That is a sustainable and inexpensive way of producing energy, and DECC has estimated that it could produce up to 10% of the electricity that the UK needs. That is a very good investment, and the Government are to be congratulated, at a time when there are limited resources, as that deep geothermal energy plant will create thousands of jobs in the company and up to 9,000 jobs in the supply chain around Cornwall for the development of that new and exciting technology.
I very much welcome the fact that, this winter, the renewable heat incentive will be made available to commercial businesses and a limited number of consumers installing ground heat pumps and other sources of renewable heat. I hope that, through that work, lessons will be learned so that we can end the debacle that we inherited with FITs. The renewable heat incentive will play an enormously important role in our energy security and in making sure that people switch to sustainable, green energy sources, so I hope that it does its job and works well.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Alan Simpson, the former Labour MP who tabled the amendment that led to the legislation on FITs. I am sad that the present Administration have succumbed to the lobbying power of the big six energy companies by taking the first step in the erosion of FITs in this country. Government Members have mentioned Germany, which has a strong FITs system, and its tariffs led to far lower energy prices than we have in this country. FITs are about where the power is, and one of their impacts is to transfer power from the energy companies to individuals—to the consumer—and to communities. That is why I am sad that the Government have introduced these proposals.
Gregory Barker
On a very important point of fact, energy prices in Germany are not lower. The cost of electricity to the German consumer is significantly higher and, importantly, 45% of the consumer’s bill there is made up through levies and policy impacts as a result of renewables legislation.
Katy Clark
As the Minister will be aware, energy prices in Germany are at the levels they were in 2008, which is a very different situation from the one we are in. Opposition spokespeople have already spoken about the bills that individuals and businesses have to face under this Government.
The Government are rushing to introduce their proposal, which will cause havoc for all the reasons outlined by many Opposition Members and, indeed, by some Government Members, because they chose to put a ceiling on the solar FIT budget. That was not the position under the previous Government. Will Ministers explain whether they have looked at surpluses in other renewable energy budgets, and ask the Treasury if they can use those budgets to ensure that more money is available for solar, given the runaway success of the scheme?
Dr Whitehead
Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that the impact assessment that went with the present changes showed that the budget that this Government introduced would not be exceeded by more than 9% up to 2015? Further to her suggestion that the Treasury might find the money to put matters right, will she suggest to the Minister that if he looks at his own budget and the Treasury rules within it, he could solve the problem now?
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend puts a powerful case. Perhaps Government Members should read the Opposition motion before them. There is acceptance on both sides of the House and within the renewable energy industry, both among consumers and among those who manufacture and install the equipment, that a review of the tariff rates is needed. The problem with the Government’s proposals is the short notice, which has come about because of the rules that the Government created for themselves. I therefore ask the Government to withdraw the arbitrary 12 December deadline and introduce more measured proposals. If Government Members agree with that, the only option available to them this evening is to vote for the Opposition motion.
We have heard a lot from the Government about their being the greenest Government ever, but the proposal that we are discussing shows what a lie that is. The only way to bring renewable energy into mass use in this country, with the economies of scale that make it a viable option for most people, is by providing incentives now for those who are leading the trail. We need a Government with vision, who are committed to developing our renewable energy industry and to combating climate change.
The only way for the Government to achieve those aims is to commit themselves fully to feed-in tariffs and to create a regime that ensures certainty in the market, so that the financial sector, both in the private and the public sectors, knows that it can invest in renewables because there is certainty about the deal on the table. Such a regime will ensure that we have a green Government and a green Britain. I urge the Government to show vision and to re-examine their proposals.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to an important and complex debate. The issue has a significant impact on Montgomeryshire. I know that many other Members have received communications from people who are concerned about the changes to the feed-in tariff.
The core issue is the tension between desirable objectives. On the one hand, we seek to tackle the carbon emissions that threaten our planet through climate change, and renewable energy is a significant part of that. On the other hand, we have to look after consumers. We heard earlier about the impact on the poorest people in society, because the subsidy has to be paid by consumers. That includes probably millions of people who are already suffering fuel poverty. It would be irresponsible of the Government not to consider those who might be driven into fuel poverty if they adopted a cavalier approach towards the subsidy required for the feed-in tariff as it was.
The Government remain committed to a variety of energy sources. Nuclear is clearly an important part of that. Renewables have a big part to play—tidal, possibly shale gas, offshore wind and even solar. Just because there is a change in the regime, I do not believe that solar will be put on the back burner at all.
The problem with feed-in tariffs for solar PV is that they have been far more successful than anybody ever anticipated. A number of Members have mentioned that today. Three times as many applications have gone ahead as could have reasonably been expected. In September alone there were 16,000 new applications. We saw the graph that the Secretary of State showed us earlier—it looked like a hockey stick. If action had not been taken now, the whole tariff scheme would have become completely unsustainable.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only would the FIT scheme become untenable, but the jobs created in the short term through the gold rush to get into the marketplace would quickly evaporate? What we want is long-term, sustainable jobs, hence the need to bring the FIT down.
Glyn Davies
I very much agree with my hon. Friend; it is a point I made in an earlier intervention. I thought that the Secretary of State’s reference to a Catherine-wheel was a wonderful analogy. A quick burst followed by a reduction in the number of jobs in the long run as a result of not doing something about the scheme would be entirely negative. Any scheme must be sustainable, and the problem with the scheme as it stood was that it was completely unsustainable.
When I first heard about the predicted change, I was as concerned as anyone, which is why I listened to the Secretary of State’s statement very carefully. Afterwards, I understood that the Government had absolutely no choice but to go forward with the changes they have made. That is the only way the scheme can be sustainable in the long term. The issue is the timetable. I was greatly relieved that he pointed out in his contribution that there is a consultation period. If people have lost money—not making less money than they were before—we need to put those cases forward and I hope that he will take them seriously and consider their special circumstances.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an important debate and a number of significant points have been made by many hon. Members despite their speaking for a limited time. My hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), among other Members, made important points about the Government’s changes to the feed-in tariff. We could no doubt have had a somewhat longer debate had time not been curtailed by the Secretary of State’s lengthy urgent statement earlier this afternoon and his lengthy speech at the start of the debate, but I want to keep my remarks as brief as possible to enable the Minister to respond. A number of important issues have been raised and I am sure that he wants to respond to them.
The Minister is a politician that many of us have come to appreciate, especially in his recent works, as a master of his art. The reduction in the feed-in tariff
“effectively slowly suffocates the growth that the policy has so far encouraged.”
Not my words but those of the Minister’s close colleague, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London.
“Industry trust and confidence in the government has evaporated.”
Again, not my words but those of the CBI. The new rates mean
“that unless you have significant savings, you’re unlikely to be able to afford solar panels”.
Once more, not my words, but those of Friends of the Earth. The ability to build such a consensus against his own policy is a formidable feat on which I congratulate the Minister.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Minister’s transformational skills. In a few short weeks, he has managed to turn a policy that was admired, appreciated and effective into a shambles that is mired in confusion, contradiction and potential legal challenge. However, he is a man of great foresight and has the extraordinary ability to set a consultation with an effective date close to two weeks before the close of the consultation. It is a remarkable record from a remarkable Minister. I can only look on in awe and wonderment at his abilities and only aspire never quite to plumb those depths myself.
Pat Glass
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue for the consumer is not the £1 each that the feed-in tariffs will cost, but the fact that the Government have clearly and demonstrably failed to tackle the big six energy companies that are taking massive and obscene profits from the British consumer?
Tom Greatrex
My hon. Friend is entirely right. When the Minister, as he is about to do, following the example of the Secretary of State, makes points about consumer bills and compares the £1 cost with the £1,345 for the average annual bill, which is 0.08%—less than a tenth of 1%—I think that the figures speak for themselves.
Tom Greatrex
I am afraid I am going to make some progress, because I want to give the Minister time to respond.
The Government have endangered an industry in its very infancy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made clear, sent to the rest of industry a signal that is doing the UK a lot of damage. It suggests that we cannot rely on what the Government say because they will change their position with scant consultation, no planning and in an arbitrary way. As E.ON said only yesterday,
“this sort of action creates uncertainty for business, and will have a negative impact”.
The Minister has argued that there is a pressing need to reduce costs, that installation costs have fallen and that the subsidy must follow, and, despite the Secretary of State’s best attempt to muddy the waters earlier, no one argues with that—not the solar industry, not consumer organisations and not the Opposition. Indeed, it might take him six months to answer his correspondence, but, as he well knows, trade bodies have argued for months that there should be a sensible, structured reduction in the subsidy—not a jump off the landing, but a walk down the stairs.
The Government’s consultation states that installation costs have reduced by 30%, but it is no good the Minister getting to his feet and citing the cost of panels in isolation from other costs as a way of justifying the 70% figure from Bloomberg, because, if installation costs have reduced by 30%, why is the tariff being cut by 52% in one go? Perhaps, as he has claimed before, it is part of his cunning plan to cut energy bills, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) has made clear, that attempt will just not work.
Tom Greatrex
I will make a little more progress and then I may be able to give way. I am conscious of the time and of the Minister needing to respond.
The important point is that the Government’s policy will also cost: it will cost some of the 25,000 jobs; it will cost some of the 3,000 businesses; and it will cost people’s confidence in the UK as a place to invest. It is shameful to pull the plug on one of the few industries providing growth and jobs, which are nowhere else in the economy, for the sake of £1 a year on a bill. It is short-sighted to put at risk 25,000 jobs and, thereby, reduce tax revenues and increase benefit payments for £1 a year. Throughout the country it will cost community projects, which are being cancelled, co-operative models that are being developed, social housing schemes and people’s sense of involvement in electricity generation in this country.
It would be unfair of me to suggest that the Minister, as much as he has united people in opposition to the policy, is without friends. He has a very supportive Secretary of State, with a burgeoning reputation for collegiate behaviour in government and loyalty to his colleagues. He is also known to dabble in Twitter, so I am sure he has made the Minister aware that there is, indeed, a SaveGregBarker Twitter feed. It has 18 followers, but perhaps it will have some more after today’s debate.
There are more than 18 of the Secretary of State’s hon. Friends who have expressed concern at his Department’s action on feed-in tariffs. However, some 24 Liberal Democrats have signed early-day motion 673, which states that
“the feed-in tariff scheme will provide much needed stability for the expansions of renewables up to…2013.”
Andrew George
The Labour motion before us turns on its penultimate line, which refers to “more measured proposals”. Members from all parts of the House want a more sustainable solution than the current one, but what are these “more measured proposals” and how they are going to be paid for?
Tom Greatrex
The hon. Gentleman, as a signatory to early-day motion 673, has expressed his concern about those issues, and I will go on to make a couple of remarks about what we need to do next, following his support for the motion before us and that of his colleagues who signed the early-day motion.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), who is no longer in his place, was quoted on the Friends of the Earth website last week, saying:
“Solar has been the real success story...We can’t afford to jeopardise thousands of jobs by slashing the feed in tariff and creating uncertainty, giving the industry no time to adjust.”
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), a Minister no less, says on his website that he has concerns
“about the speed and level of the proposed changes for community size projects and I am therefore asking the Secretary of State to examine urgently the case for some flexibility”.
The Secretary of State’s own Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), quoted in the Financial Times this morning, said that we should look at the German model of gradually reducing support rather than, as I described it earlier, jumping off the cliff.
If all those friends of the Secretary of State want to be friends to the Government—I understand their desire, however misguided, to support the Government—and if they want to get the Government to right their mistakes; if they want to repair some of the damage of the past few weeks; if they want a sustainable and sensible model for support going forward; if they want to walk down the stairs rather than jump off the landing; if, perhaps, they want to “SaveGregBarker”, they must vote for the motion this evening. They should look at the wording of the motion, which is about having a sustainable, sensible, gradual approach rather than making a sudden cut that is putting people, jobs and businesses in jeopardy and leaving consumers high and dry. Let us help rescue the Government from the mess that they have made for themselves, and support the motion this evening.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I believe in the huge potential of solar. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who made an excellent speech, I believe it is a terrific technology. It is intuitive, dynamic, attractive to consumers and easy to install, and I am determined to see it at the heart of the coalition’s ambitious plans to bring decentralised energy to millions of Britain’s homes, communities and businesses. What is more, unlike the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I campaigned for it, voted for it and genuinely believe in it.
However, for those of us who are passionately committed to the green agenda, there are two great threats in these difficult economic times. First, and obviously, there are the climate change deniers, but secondly, and I think even more dangerously at the moment, there are the deficit deniers. There is no greater bunch of deficit-denying opportunists than Opposition Front Benchers, who seem to think that the green economy lives in a vacuum, immune to the economic realities confronting every other sector of the British economy and to the impact that that has on consumer bills.
The fact is that Labour was wrong to vote against feed-in tariffs in November 2008. It was also wrong to introduce them in April 2010 without any budgetary control mechanism at all, and wrong to ignore lessons from the successful FITs model in Germany. It was wrong to ignore totally the potentially huge impact that FITs could have on the fuel-poor in particular, and catastrophically wrong earlier this year when it insisted that our early review of large-scale feed-in tariffs would butcher the entire UK solar industry. In fact, following that statement by the Labour Front Benchers, the deployment of solar technology has risen by more than 300%, and it has risen more than tenfold since the beginning of the year. The statistics are staggering.
No wonder Which? has stated:
“It’s right that the Government properly controls spending on Feed-in Tariffs as everyone pays for this scheme through their energy bills.”
No wonder the chief executive of Consumer Focus has said:
“The Government is taking a sensible approach to protect energy bill-payers with the proposed changes to Feed-in Tariffs. Incentives to overcome the high set-up cost of solar panels and help make our energy supply greener are necessary. But the cost for this is passed onto bills of energy customers and we need to strike a balance.”
That is exactly what we need to do—strike a sensible balance between our high ambition for decentralised energy and recognising the costs of what is still the most expensive to support of the whole array of decentralised technologies.
Unfortunately, Opposition Front Benchers bury their heads in the sand. The notion that spending billions on solar would cost no more than £1 on people’s bills is from cloud cuckoo land. They clearly have not yet got up to speed with their brief. They will know from the impact assessment that we published in September that the central estimate is that it would add £28 to bills every year by 2020. Since then the estimate has risen again, and the higher estimate is £55. We now know, given the level of deployment in October, that if we did not act now it would add up to £80 to everybody’s electricity bills.
Tell that to the 5.5 million people whom Labour left in fuel poverty. Let us not dwell on the fact that Labour cannot add up and are a bunch of deficit deniers. We know that because of the state they left the economy in.
Some very sensible comments have been made in this debate, and I am very grateful to all colleagues.
Dr Whitehead
On the impact assessment that the Minister himself carried out, does he accept that the £26 is relevant only if the tariff at its present level continues until 2015, which was never the scheme’s intention in the first place, on anybody’s reckoning? Will he withdraw that suggestion and replace it with what is the case in the impact assessment? [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order, Minister. Has the hon. Gentleman finished his intervention? Right, now it is the Minister’s turn. I think that we will decide, thank you.
Gregory Barker
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The impact assessment relates to no change until April next year, and then there will be degression, as planned by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government and set up this poorly conceived scheme last year. So, as I say, I am afraid that he is incorrect on that point.
We have had some extremely sensible contributions. The one from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), in which he flagged up the impact that the scheme will have on not only fuel bills but the fuel-poor, was absolutely right. Too often the voice of the fuel-poor is distorted. Yes, it is great for the few thousand who may benefit from solar panels in social housing, but what about the other 5.5 million whom Labour left in fuel poverty, who will not benefit but would still face the prospect of £80 on their electricity bills? Go and tell the other 5.5 million people who will be left out how they are going to find the extra £80 if we do not act now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) was spot-on in his analysis and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) was right. I am afraid there is absolutely no sign of anything that even looks like a “Sorry” from Opposition Front Benchers for the mess they made of setting up the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was right: we need to learn the lessons from Labour’s failed scheme, particularly because although the feed-in tariff scheme supports solar, it also supports a whole range of other technologies. We must not forget that. We want a diverse, innovation-rich, decentralised energy economy, and there is a lot more to the feed-in tariff scheme than solar alone, important though that is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood made excellent points about Germany. He was spot-on when he said that we need to pull solar into the mainstream of the green economy, rather than leaving it as a bubble in a silo at one side. That is why the launch of the green deal will bring solar into the mainstream. That is a very exciting proposition. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) also made some excellent points, and I share the view that we need to have a consistent regime. [Hon. Members: “They’re all on your side.”] The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) listed and spoke at length to Opposition contributions. I have very limited time, so I am going to mention those from my hon. Friends first.
However, I recognise that there is genuine concern about the implementation of the reference date of 12 December, and that it will be a real challenge for a lot of companies. We did not do this lightly. We have had to move quickly in order to protect the budget. Unfortunately, if we had not done so we would have had to do what Labour did in the past and close the scheme completely. We will not do that. We are protecting the scheme for the long term and for sustainability. This is a genuine consultation. We are constrained by the budget and by demand, which is going through the roof, but at the same time, I am listening carefully to the many sensible representations—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2) and Order, 14 November), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Something happened to one of my constituents today that is of fundamental importance, I believe, to all hon. Members regarding constituents’ access to Parliament. My constituent attended a Palestine lobby, similar to one she has attended on many previous occasions, but on this occasion things were different. As she arrived at security, a police officer confiscated her lobby briefing material and told her that she was not allowed to have anything of a political nature. In fact, she was told that this was a direction from the House authorities. The officer then spoke to a senior officer, who gave the same response. Eventually, the material was returned to her, but she was told, “Yes, we will return this material, but do not do this again.” I ask your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was this a direction from the House authorities? Will you confirm that constituents are not allowed to have anything of a political nature with them when they attend Parliament?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
This is a matter for the staff and the police. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not discuss security issues or what has gone on as a matter of security, but he has put his views on the record. I am sure that the authorities and security will look into the matter, and I am sure that someone will come back to the hon. Gentleman now that he has raised it on the Floor of the House.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bowel Cancer Screening
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter in the House. Bowel cancer affects men and women, and it is the second-highest killer after lung cancer. The debate is, I suggest, both timely and genuinely needed.
I have personal experience of the NHS that is probably too long to list. When I was a jockey, I was saved by a gastro-surgeon at Warwick hospital. I hoped I was riding the winner at Stratford races, but we turned over and the horse ruptured my spleen, perforated my left kidney and broke nine bones in my ribs. I can assure the House that it hurt a great deal. The surgeon saved my life on that occasion. Subsequently, it is well known that I had a meningioma in April and was recently given the all clear by Mr Neil Kitchen and the amazing staff at Queen Square hospital in north London.
My grandmother was an NHS matron and I have had bowel cancer screening. Certain family members have had this cancer, so I had the colonoscopy that was medically advised in those circumstances. I would certainly not be an MP were it not for the campaigns I waged on behalf of Savernake hospital in Wiltshire, where I was born; that hospital also saved my mum’s life.
I would like to declare an interest as a taxpayer. The NHS’s approach to individual screening is surely an issue in which we should all be interested—from the point of view of prevention of loss of life and the maintenance of good health, but also in respect of how NHS funding, which is clearly finite, is spent on preventing future problems.
I pay tribute to the Beating Bowel Cancer regime, to Cancer Research UK, to the British Society of Gastroenterology, and to Professor Wendy Atkin, her funders and the 170,000 volunteers who took part in her definitive study of flexible sigmoidoscopy, which is known as a flexi-scope. I also pay tribute to Imperial College London, University College London, the University of East Anglia and St Mark’s hospital, and to the variety of doctors, constituents, charities and members of the public who have worked so hard to combat this problem and have helped me to prepare for the debate—including the clinicians, particularly Dr Colin Rees.
As a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the north-east, I am proud to say that the north-east leads the way in bowel cancer screening. It was the first to complete coverage of an entire region in April 2010.
Before I embark on the substance of my argument, I also make an apology on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who sponsored the Beating Bowel Cancer reception in the House last year. Much to his regret, he cannot be here tonight. He is a good friend of mine, but he is well known in the House—and, indeed, throughout the world—for having worn the Beating Bowel Cancer tie, which I am now wearing, in the Chamber after that reception. My hon. Friend, who has quite a generous build, was attempting to restrain that generous build with his suit when he accidentally touched a button on the tie, setting off a melody that lasted for nearly two minutes. Madam Deputy Speaker virtually extracted him from the Chamber. I understand that the incident was reported in 25 countries, and did more for the screening of bowel cancer worldwide than anything that anyone has said since.
I have no future as a surgeon, and I assure the House that I have removed the bottom half of my own tie so that there is no possibility of my being extracted from the Chamber for being too musical.
Let me now make some serious points about the clinical position. Traditional bowel cancer screening involves the faecal occult blood test, known as the FOB. In the last few years 11 million people in the country have been offered the test, 6 million have accepted it, 120,000 scopes have followed, and 12,000 diagnostic findings of cancer have resulted. It is clear from the statistics that lives have been saved. Previously those screened were aged between 60 and 69, but screening has now been extended to those aged between 60 and 74. It should be noted that the north-east—leading the way, as it does so often in a medical context—was the first region to extend the age group.
Tragically, take-up of that vital free NHS screening is only 54%, whereas take-up of breast cancer screening is 74% and take-up of cervical cancer screening is 79%. However, the situation is changing. Professor Wendy Atkin and her team have brought flexible sigmoidoscopy to the forefront of bowel cancer screening. The results of their 16-year study were definitive. Their randomised trial, which followed 170,432 people, established that the flexi-scope examination reduces the incidence of bowel cancer in those aged between 55 and 64 by a third. Mortality was 43% lower among that group than it was in members of the control group.
The flexi-scope test works by detecting and removing growths on the bowel wall, known as polyps, which can become cancerous if left untreated. It can prevent cancer from developing by removing polyps before they become cancerous, and provides long-lasting protection from bowel cancer.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that screening for certain kinds of hereditary cancers, such as non-polypsosis colorectal cancer, should begin at a much earlier age, and should take place relatively frequently throughout the lives of those who are screened?
Guy Opperman
I do indeed. I welcome the fact that the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have changed to allow screening to become considerably more frequent in such cases. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that.
Flexi-scope screening will undoubtedly save thousands of lives. FOB screening saved 700 to 1,000 lives a year, and flexi-scope screening will save about 3,000 lives a year. To confirm that, the Government implemented a pathfinder project in three areas. Unsurprisingly, two of those areas were in the north-east, this country’s leading medical region. The three areas were South of Tyne and Wear and Tees, along with Derby. The pathfinder findings are with the Department of Health and have not yet been published, but I can assure the House that, in broad terms, they accord with Professor Atkin’s findings. Last October, the Prime Minister announced a proposal to pilot the scheme nationally in 2012, but there are clinical and funding issues that need to be addressed.
First, when is the Department of Health going to invite bids for the follow-on pilot process, given that that was supposed to be done in 2011 and it is now 23 November?
Secondly, clinicians raise the specific concern that the flexi-scope system is only manageable if we have a sufficiency of trained nurse endoscopists, so where are we in respect of this crucial training? Even with the most amazing piece of equipment, if we do not have the people to operate and interpret it, it is useless. Under this scheme, several hundreds of thousands of endoscopies will have to be carried out, with colonoscopies to follow in about 10% of cases. Therefore, everything will depend on training.
Thirdly, how does the Department of Health plan to assess its age groups? My understanding is that the current group of 60 to 74-year-olds will have FOB testing, and those aged 55 will have a flexi-scope. That is relatively clear, but what will happen for gentlemen and ladies in the 56-to-60 age group is not at all clear. Will they be offered the flexi-scope as well, or is that to be based solely on GP referral? Trusts need guidance on what they are to do with such a large and unknown number of people, as they need to plan budgets, staffing and much more besides.
Fourthly, we need to assess what we are going to do with those who have a flexi-scope at 55 and receive the all-clear and then reach the age of 60. Will we rescreen? Anyone who has ever worked in the health industry will know that there is “health speak”, and in this case the following question would be asked: “What is the parallel screening modality for the future?” As always, “health speak” is gibberish, but the simple question here is: are we going to rescreen people who are fine at 55?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have also gone through the screening process because of a family history of cancer. My GP and consultant at that time said the screening would have to be done again in a year’s time and then again a year later, in order to be absolutely sure. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether there should be checks not just every now and again, but on a periodic basis?
Guy Opperman
It is ultimately up to the clinician—which it should be, frankly. The Minister must say how this policy will be implemented, but it should always be clinically driven.
Fifthly, trusts need confirmation that the pilot projects to be implemented next year will be funded from national funding.
I want to turn briefly to the financial case. The researchers behind the Atkin study suggest that the screening programme will reduce the costs associated with treating people with bowel cancer. Ministers will be aware of the Department of Health-commissioned report, as set out in the memorably named journal, Gut, in 2006, which suggested that if a screening programme based on this test was effective, it could save an average of £28 for every person screened. I urge the Minister to follow what a lot of doctors and others have recommended. We must understand why people do not take up the state’s offer to safeguard their health. If only 54% of those eligible are taking up this offer, that is a serious issue that needs to addressed.
When should we start screening? I speak as an MP whose constituency borders Scotland, and we are often told that in Scotland the health care system is much better, much more expansive and so much more free. In Scotland, FOB screening takes place at 60, not 50 as it does in this country and my understanding is that they do not intend to take up the flexi-scope screening. Personally, I am yet to be persuaded of the clinical or financial basis for screening at the age of 50 given the immense task of screening from the age of 55 onwards, with all the numbers of people who will go through the system. Although there might be pressure—obviously, the Opposition Benches are packed—to move towards such screening at 50, there is no clinical or financial basis in the current system to justify such an approach.
I want to address the possible role of private or other public organisations, suitably supervised, in this process of change. We need to explore the issue of those whom the state must look after but do not take up the offer of screening. It affects both their health and our finite budget. The state must and will always be the provider of medical services in the future—no one disputes that—but it must also enable change and encourage private or public organisations to help in health care. All acknowledge that the take-up of screening is tragically low, as 46% resist the chance to screen themselves for bowel cancer and more than 20% of women resist the chance to have cervical or breast cancer screening. Everybody must accept that there is a problem with that. How can we address that?
Only the short-sighted or extremely socialist would suggest that the state always has the answer to all those problems. What if public sector organisations were to go the extra mile and care for their employees in a different way? We should bear it in mind that the state spends a fortune training its employees to carry out their designated tasks, whether they are consultants, surgeons, endoscopists or nurses. It surely makes sense to safeguard one’s assets—that is, one’s employees. Why not use the public sector as a lead by making it either mandatory or strongly advisable that all permanent core workers should have the screening that their health deserves and that we ask of the rest of the public? I would suggest that they should lead the way. That follows on from the point that is made about flu jabs and the prevention of winter problems in hospital.
We should also consider companies; I want to finish on a localism point. We always criticise employers in this House, but let us say that we had an enlightened employer. Why could they not be allowed or even encouraged to conduct screening of their workers, in whom they invest so much? There is clearly a benefit to the worker, the employer-employee relationship would improve as the employee was valued and cared for, and the state would not necessarily have to pay for the health care screening provided to its citizens. I am talking not just about bowel cancer screening, which is quite complex. Breast cancer screening, for example, is important but not necessarily that difficult.
The cost of such privately paid screening could then be borne in the form of a reclaimable tax break to the company, such as an equivalent cut in the cost of the company’s local business taxes. That would offer localism, increased health screening and better care for employees. Although there might be some data protection issues and concerns about who would pay for the follow-up care, it would unquestionably improve the take-up of screening. I refuse to accept that there is no mileage in my suggestion, which surely brings true localism and better screening to the workplace.
In the minute or so I have left, I want to address the fact that this is men’s health awareness month and individual members of the public must take responsibility for their own health. All around us, perfectly sane men are sporting moustaches as “Movember” kicks into gear. For too long, men have ignored their health. It is well known that they do not have regular check ups. The reality is—I am not surprised the House is not packed this evening—men do not like to talk about the prostate or their bowel. As one of the nurses I met in hospitals put it to me: “Men and their bits—they get so precious about them! If men had to go through what women have to go through with cervical cancer screening and pregnancy they would be a great deal more healthy and self aware.”
I praise the television celebrity Chris Evans for his campaign to show that there is no shame and in fact great benefit in having bowel cancer screening. The shame in such matters exists when people ignore the signs and even die through false manliness or ignorance.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing the debate and on setting out the issues so clearly. Let me just confirm the answer that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—it is the case that the NICE guidance has been changed in the way that he said. I hope that helps her. I look forward to reading the Hansard report of his description of his tie and the removal of certain items that would have made a noise in the debate had he pressed the button.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has used this opportunity very well to raise awareness of these issues further. There has been good progress in bowel cancer survival over the past 30 years, with the survival rates for men and women doubling, but it remains a devastating disease. In 2009, some 32,751 people were diagnosed with the cancer and 12,691 people died from it. In the vast majority of cases, the earlier a cancer is diagnosed, the sooner the treatment can begin and the better the outcomes are likely to be. That is why early diagnosis of cancer is central to the Government’s cancer outcome strategy and that is why it is vital that we do more to diagnose cancers earlier and improve survival rates as a result.
We are focusing on survival rates because they are a much more effective way of addressing and assessing NHS performance, as they show how good the NHS is, compared with other countries, at diagnosing and treating people with cancer. Measures such as cancer mortality figures are not a good way of assessing the NHS’s performance as they are an indicator of both incidence and survival. They indicate more about societal changes than about what the NHS has done.
Screening is one of the most important means by which cancer—and in the case of bowel cancer, of abnormalities that may lead to cancer—can be detected earlier. Research undertaken in Nottingham and Denmark in the 1980s showed that screening men and women aged 45 to 74 for bowel cancer using the faecal occult blood test could reduce the mortality rate from bowel cancer by 16%. An independently evaluated pilot in Warwickshire and Scotland showed that this research could be replicated in an NHS setting. Based on the final evaluation report of the pilot and a formal options appraisal, the programme in England began screening men and women aged 60 to 69 in July 2006, and I am pleased to say that full roll-out was achieved last August.
Experts have estimated that by 2025, about 2,400 lives could be saved every year by the current NHS bowel cancer screening programme. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there may be more we could do through occupational health interventions. As at 31 October this year, more than 12.2 million kits had been sent out and more than 6.9 million had been returned. We have to do more to get more returns, but from those returns 10,785 cancers were detected and 53,616 patients underwent polyp removal. As my hon. Friend said, polyps that are left untreated can develop into bowel cancer. Men and women over the age limit can request a testing kit every two years, and more than 145,000 have self-referred to the screening programme in just that way.
As some 15% of bowel cancers—4,893 in 2009—are diagnosed in men and women aged 70 to 74, the NHS bowel cancer screening programme is currently being extended to men and women aged from 70 up to their 75th birthday. As at the end of October this year, 33 of the 58 local screening centres had implemented the extension of that programme. When the extension is fully rolled out by next year, about 1 million more men and women will be screened each year.
We know that the evidence for faecal occult blood test screening starts at 50, as shown by the trials that have been mentioned. The original programme invited only people in their 60s because the risk of bowel cancer increases with age. Nearly 85% of bowel cancers arise in people over the age of 60. In the pilot, more than three times more cancers were detected in people aged over 60 than in those under 60, and people in their 60s were most likely to complete the testing kit. In addition, there was not enough endoscopy resource to begin the wider age roll-out. To underline a point that my hon. Friend made, in terms of cost, the 2004 working group report on NHS cancer screening programmes, which assessed a number of models for bowel cancer screening, found that starting at age 50 ranked fifth—bottom—in terms of cost-effectiveness.
The national endoscopy training programme has allowed us to begin extending the programme to people up to age 75. However, this extension to the current programme, the planned introduction of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening, which I will come back to in a moment, and the move to more investigations of symptomatic patients mean that a key priority is to increase endoscopy activity. We have begun from a low level, as my hon. Friend suggested, with much lower rates of endoscopy than many other comparable countries. For example, colonoscopy rates in England are eight per 1,000 population, compared with Scotland, where they are 12 per 1,000 population, and Australia, where the rate is 21 per 1,000.
The Department has undertaken further modelling work to estimate the demand for endoscopy services up to 2015-16. That analysis shows that the NHS will need to increase lower GI endoscopic capacity by 15% a year over the next five years to meet underlying growth and the commitments set out in the Government’s cancer outcomes strategy. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, that is how the issue about the work force and making sure that there is a sufficient supply of nurse endoscopists is being addressed.
Funding for an increased number of endoscopies has been put into primary care trust baselines, and that is part of the £750 million over four years that accompanies the cancer outcomes strategy. While it is primarily for the NHS to take the necessary steps to increase endoscopy activity, we are looking at the scope for central support, for example, through service improvement work led by NHS Improvement. However, we are making a huge investment in our bowel screening programme for people in their 50s, in response to my hon. Friend’s fifth question about funding. In September 2010, we announced £60 million of funding for the introduction of a life-saving new screening method—flexible sigmoidoscopy—in the programme.
Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an alternative, and a complementary bowel screening methodology to faecal occult blood. New evidence shows that men and women aged 55 attending a one-off flexible sig screening test for bowel cancer can reduce the risk of mortality from the disease by 43%, and it can reduce the incidence of bowel cancer by 33%. Flexi sig involves a thin, bendy tube, which the doctor uses to look at the inside wall of the bowel and remove any growths—polyps—that are present. Bowel cancer usually develops very slowly from polyps, which are called adenomas. By removing them at an early stage, it is possible to prevent bowel cancer from developing.
My hon. Friend referred to the randomised controlled trials conducted by Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council and NHS R&D in 14 UK and six Italian centres. The study concluded that flexi sig is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between the ages 55 and 64, it confers a substantial and long-lasting benefit. Based on the trial figures, experts estimate that we could prevent as many as 3,000 cancers every year and save thousands of lives.
In 2011, pathfinder sites tested organisational arrangements for the operation of flexi sig screening, with particular attention to the invitation and appointment process. That will enable optimal strategies to be applied in the national pilots. The pathfinder sites were in the Tees, south of Tyne and Wear, and Derbyshire local screening centres. We have formal agreements in place to develop the IT system for flexi sig—I hope that that answers my hon. Friend’s first question—and local screening centres will be invited to bid to become pilot sites early in 2012.
In response to my hon. Friend’s third and fourth questions, the bowel cancer screening advisory committee has advised that people should be invited at age 55, with two reminders, before they become eligible for the faecal occult blood test programme at 60. People from the original trial are being followed up to gain information about the most appropriate faecal occult blood test policy for people who have undergone flexi sig screening. We do not have the answer yet, but we are working to make sure that we do have a clear answer to assist physicians.
The coalition Government’s cancer strategy set out our aim to achieve 30% coverage of flexi sig screening across England by 2013-14, and 60% by 2014-15. It is envisaged that full roll-out will be achieved by 2016. We are also looking at other ways in which we can improve bowel cancer screening. Our cancer outcomes strategy sets out how NHS cancer screening programmes will look at how more accurate and easier-to-use immunochemical faecal occult blood tests—those are words that one can struggle with, and I hope Hansard will be kind to me—can be introduced into the programme, potentially to increase uptake and to provide more accurate results. A protocol has been devised to pilot such testing within the programme to assess the feasibility, practicality and cost-effectiveness of moving to this new technology.
To date our awareness activity has focused on bowel cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer, and we have spent nearly £11 million supporting 59 cancer awareness campaigns and trialling a national bowel cancer campaign. That campaign is about making sure that people do not die of embarrassment when it comes to bowel cancer, and that, if they think there is blood in their poo or if they have loose stools, they will go and see their GP and get a referral for a diagnosis. It is also about Ministers, as much as anyone else, overcoming their embarrassment about talking about it. The more we are prepared to start talking about these embarrassing subjects, the less people will die of embarrassment as a result.
We know that the pilot, the Be Clear on Cancer campaign, which we launched in January this year and ran for seven weeks in the east of England and in the south-west, made a real difference in the number of people being referred into the programme. The evaluation of the Be Clear on Cancer campaign to date has shown that people have become much more aware of the signs and symptoms of bowel cancer, people have been very supportive of such campaigns by the Government, and there has been an increase of about 50% in people over 50 with the relevant symptoms going to see their GP. This increase will lead to people being saved.
I hope this debate has reassured people that the Government take bowel cancer screening as a serious priority. We are determined to save more lives in future and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Disability Hate Crime
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is, as always, a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have the chance to open this debate.
Writer and journalist Katherine Quarmby, who addressed a joint meeting of the all-party groups on disability and learning disability in Parliament a couple of months ago, told us that in the course of her research into the subject she had been unable to find much evidence that disability hate crime had been debated in either House in Parliament. I am glad that we are able to put that right today.
The issue concerns many hon. Members from across the House. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who has done a great deal of work on this subject, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who will be responding to the debate from the Labour Front Bench.
I acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to align the tariff for murder where disability is a motivating or aggravating feature with that for race, religion and sexuality, which he made in response to my amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last month. That amendment enjoyed the support of a number of hon. Members from across the House.
That commitment was a useful step in the right direction and one that organisations such as Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others have been calling for. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s undertaking and look forward to hearing in more detail how the Government will progress his commitment.
The reality is that sentencing for murder is just the tip of a deeply disturbing and significant problem. As the recent EHRC report “Hidden in plain sight” has shown, attitudes, behaviours and practices, both institutional and individual, are contributing to a growing climate of hostility towards disabled people and fall well short of being a satisfactory response to the harassment of those people and the commission of crimes against them. I hope that today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to tell us specifically what actions the Government are taking to address so-called disability hate crime and to tackle one of the nastiest, most disgraceful forms of crime in our society. The coalition Government have promised a hate crime action plan, but we are still waiting for it. Disabled people, their families and campaigners are rightly anxious for action now.
The EHRC reports that around 1.9 million disabled people were victims of crime in 2009-10. We do not know how many were victims of harassment, but we do know that disabled people face a greater risk of being a victim of crime than people who are not disabled. There is also evidence that disabled people are more likely to experience antisocial behaviour, although more research is needed on that to confirm the scale of the problem. That is clearly unacceptable. What is worse, we also know that too often disabled people will feel forced to put up with a pattern of harassment, humiliation, antisocial behaviour and low-level criminal behaviour and come to accept it as an inevitable part of their lives.
What may start as relatively low-level harassment all too often escalates, becoming intolerable for the victim. In the worst cases, it can spiral to the point of violence, even murder, or to a situation in which victims and their families are simply unable to carry on with their lives. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the shocking case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francecca, whose suffering of persistent harassment and abuse ultimately led to their deaths.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this important debate. She has mentioned the issue of attacks on people with disabilities. Does she not agree that there needs to be a campaign to increase awareness of that? We congratulate Mencap on its excellent “Stand by Me” campaign, but does she not agree that such awareness needs to start back at primary school? Schools need to have a role and to teach our young people to have respect for people with disabilities.
Kate Green
Indeed, and I will say a little more about that. It is an important point that highlights that some of the perpetrators of really shocking instances of abuse and criminal behaviour are very young. Intervening early to demonstrate to them the absolute unacceptability of such behaviour is clearly the right thing to do.
Cases such as that of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington are of course the extreme, but they exist in a context of rising hostility to disabled people, which fuels abusive behaviour and leads to an increase in the harassment of them. Recent research for Scope by ComRes has shown that 47 % of disabled people feel that attitudes towards them had got worse over the past year, with 66% of disabled people reporting experiencing aggression, hostility or name calling.
A study published last month by the Glasgow Media Group, which analyses how the media are reporting disability in the context of Government spending cuts, reveals a major shift in how disabled people are portrayed, and the negative impact that that is having, both on public attitudes and on disabled people themselves. The research found a fall in media coverage that described disabled people in sympathetic and deserving terms, and an increase in the number of articles focusing on disability benefit fraud. Researchers observed an increase in articles portraying disabled people as a “burden” on the economy, with some articles even blaming the recession on incapacity benefits claimants.
Harassment and attacks exist and flourish in that context of hostility—a context, it has to be said, to which politicians are helping to contribute. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the derogatory and damaging language that has surrounded too much of the debate about welfare reform, and will give her commitment that there is a determination across Government to stamp out any negative portrayal of disabled people.
Although attitudes and language are important, campaigners have rightly identified the need for a much wider, whole-system change. That requires that public bodies and the professionals who work in them treat all manifestations of disability-related harassment and hate crime with the utmost seriousness. Too often, victims fail to report harassment and attacks, because they are unsure to whom they should report them, or because they feel that they will not be believed. Too often, when attacks are reported, the response of the professionals is to focus on the behaviour of the victim and how that should change. In other words, they focus on how victims should curtail their lives to avoid finding themselves in a situation in which they continue to experience harassment. That cannot be right. The priority must be to focus on the behaviour of the perpetrators, to challenge behaviour that is unacceptable, to deal appropriately with criminal behaviour and to take all necessary steps to prevent it occurring.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has just made the point about people being subjected to patterns of harassment. Is she hearing from police officers that they are increasingly conscious that, when younger officers or officers who are new to an area produce a report and check the books, they find that that report is the latest in a series of reports about harassment being suffered by a particular individual? It is almost because a report forms part of a pattern that the police are inclined to say, “There is nothing we can do about it”, because nothing has happened about the previous reports. The police fail to appreciate the cumulative impact of this sort of antisocial behaviour and constant harassment. Such behaviour and harassment should be a call to action rather than a call to indifference.
Kate Green
That is an important point and I am sure that it is one that the police will also take note of. Too often there is an attitude that nothing can be done because the victim is disabled and there is scepticism about what disabled victims say. One shocking case, quoted in Katharine Quarmby’s book “Scapegoat”, was that of a blind woman who had been sexually assaulted, but the response of the police was that it was not possible to proceed with the case because, of course, she had not seen her attacker.
In its report, “Hidden in plain sight”, the EHRC has proposed a number of important measures to help to improve the situation. First, there must be leadership and ownership of the issue across all public bodies. This is not an issue simply for one arm of government. It cuts across central Government Departments, local government, the criminal justice system, the education system, health, housing, care, transport, employment and so on. Therefore, a signal from the Minister today of the seriousness with which the Government regard the issue will be important. However, warm words will not be enough. Disabled people want to know how Ministers will ensure that the issue remains a priority for ministerial attention across Government; what structures exist within Whitehall to focus attention and drive action; what accountability mechanisms will be put in place; how public institutions that fail to take action will be compelled to do so; and how Ministers will work with local government to ensure ownership of the issue at local level.
Secondly, such an approach must be informed and supported by the systematic gathering and monitoring of data that spell out the scale and severity of the problem, and by analysis of that data to support and direct policy makers’ attention to where action is needed. We know that there is significant under-reporting of harassment and abuse of disabled people, and there is a need to improve the recording and reporting of disability hate crime.
Radar has responded to that problem through its “Stop Disability Hate Crime” project, which is working with disabled people’s organisations and the authorities to develop a national independent disability hate crime reporting centre, which will provide minimum standards for other such centres, and raise awareness of disability hate crime and incidents and how to report them. The project also maps the disability hate crime third-party reporting sites that already exist or are being established. Also, a survey has been undertaken to find out why disabled people do not want to report disability hate crime and what would make them more confident to do so.
The Radar project is an important initiative and I hope that the Government will look carefully at the lessons that emerge from it, and at ways of strengthening the capacity of third-party hate crime reporting centres as a valuable way of increasing the incidence of reporting. Of course, it will be important that such centres follow minimum standards, but I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome Radar’s work in that area and look forward to its report, which is due to be published early next year.
Thirdly, practice at the front line is, of course, vital to ensure that action is taken swiftly to respond to and prevent harassment or criminal attacks on disabled people. That requires the engagement, attention and effort of a range of public institutions. Crucially, those public institutions must work in partnership with each other and with disabled people to develop and to implement the right strategies to tackle disability hate crime. That partnership working can enable early identification of the patterns of behaviour that we have been discussing today, which is essential if problems are not to escalate. Today those patterns are too often missed, or cases are dealt with in isolation. As a result, the response of the authorities can be fragmented, inadequate or too slow.
In its 2009 report on the security of disabled people, the EHRC pointed out that a range of public authorities were not playing any preventive role: housing associations, social care providers, health care providers, the voluntary and community sector and local authorities. Too often, there is an inadequate response to incidents even when they are reported. That must change. Although there has been some progress in the response of the criminal justice agencies, action across the piece is needed and it is in that context that the Government’s action plan will be so important.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and bringing this matter to the Chamber today. Society is always measured by how it treats those who are less well-off, and that is true of individuals as well as of society as a whole. She has discussed a campaign that she hopes the Government will support. Does she feel that that campaign should not only be an England and Wales campaign but a campaign that goes to Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? If so, perhaps the catalyst to make that happen will come from this Chamber today. I ask the Minister to consider that point too in her response to the debate.
Kate Green
That is also an important point, and if there is good practice from which we can learn we will want to learn it in every part of the United Kingdom.
The Government’s action plan will need to include action on developing a better understanding of the motivations of perpetrators of disability hate crime, and of the interventions that are effective in changing such behaviour. It must be a priority to develop appropriate interventions that can be made in schools, which have already been mentioned, in the criminal justice system, through family and community programmes, and in other settings. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what analysis and action the Government are considering with regard to those interventions.
The action plan must also address the need for proper training of front-line professionals who may be required to recognise and respond to issues of disability-related harassment. Such training must include training in communication skills and understanding and recognising signals of abuse. I hope that the Minister will be specific today about the steps that the Government are taking to make progress on those matters and I look forward to hearing her response.
Before I conclude, I want to highlight one especially vulnerable group of victims—those people with learning disabilities who have experienced sexual violence or abuse. All too often in those cases, the perpetrator is a partner, a family member or a carer, so the attack is compounded by an abuse of intimacy and a breach of the victim’s trust.
A shockingly high proportion of women with learning disabilities have experienced sexual abuse. The problems that other victims of disability hate crime experience are magnified for these women by their not being believed, by professionals not knowing how to address the issue, and by abuse continuing and escalating over a long period, which happens all too often.
During the summer, I attended a conference with a group of learning disabled women to discuss the measures that are needed to address that form of abuse. The conference was jointly organised by the rape crisis centre in my own borough of Trafford, Salford university and Change, an organisation that is run by and for learning disabled people.
The learning disabled women present at the conference, who themselves were victims of sexual abuse, were absolutely clear about the action that is needed. I should say that they were also prepared to acknowledge that there have been improvements in parts of the criminal justice system, including better awareness among the police, greater understanding of their circumstances and their needs by the Crown Prosecution Service, and greater responsiveness from the courts. However, they also highlighted the need for specialist advice and support to be much more widely available. They spoke about a lack of access to health services and other support services, which happened for a number of reasons: sometimes because of discrimination, sometimes because of a lack of communication skills, and sometimes because they and other learning disabled women were not empowered to express their needs. They repeated that there was a need for training for front-line professionals, which they strongly suggested should be delivered by learning disabled women themselves. They identified an additional barrier that they faced, which was dealing with workers who did not have the confidence to deal with them as learning disabled women.
Women often want to use mainstream services where they can, but feel that the staff are often not equipped to support them. In her role as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I hope that the hon. Lady takes these points up urgently with colleagues in the relevant Departments, and urges them to engage directly with learning disabled women in formulating Government policy.
I want to put on record my gratitude to the disabled people and their families who have taken the time to describe to me the deeply distressing, shocking and vicious attacks they have experienced, and how the system has sometimes let them down. I also want to thank the families of Keith Philpott and Gary Skelly, members of the Disability Hate Crime Network, Simon Green and Stephen Brookes, and the women I met at Change. Their stories of abuse, violence and in some cases death, have brought home to me that there remains a dark and primitive side to our attitudes to disabled people, which still too often manifests itself in harassment and criminal behaviour that simply cannot be tolerated in any civilised society. I am pleased that we are debating the issue this morning. It must not remain hidden in plain sight.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this debate on a very important issue.
I, too, met the family of Gary Skelly on Monday, and we watched the 15-minute video they have put together as part of their FACE Facts campaign. Gary Skelly, a 53-year-old man who lived in Norris Green, Liverpool, was attacked just over a year ago—punched for no obvious reason, and killed. The perpetrator was sentenced to seven years for manslaughter, so, unfortunately, even the amendment that the hon. Lady and I have tabled to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill would not have given him the sentence I feel he deserved. What happened left the family not just bemused and confused, but greatly distressed. They simply could not understand what had happened to someone about whom they, and many in the community, cared greatly.
I consider myself relatively fortunate in Blackpool, in that I have an excellent third-party reporting centre and the Disability Hate Crime Network is very strong. The hon. Lady has already mentioned Stephen Brookes, one of my constituents, who helps up and down the land in ensuring that the fight to have this form of hate crime recognised is prosecuted as widely as possible. Yet I can still be shocked. About six months ago, a father and his son came to one of my constituency surgeries. The son, in his early twenties, had had a serious car crash a few years previously and now has a developmental learning disorder. He was trying to go to college, but faced abuse from neighbours and cat-calls as he walked there, and was now dropping out. I thought, “My word, even in Blackpool, where we are really trying, this is still occurring.” But what really shocked me most was that it was occurring not in my constituency, but in my own road, where I live, and had been going on for many months without my being aware of it, not 100 yards from my front door. Such incidents are hidden in plain sight, as the title of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report makes clear. It is probably happening in very close proximity to where we all live, and we might not be aware of it.
I want to focus today on an aspect of disability hate crime that does not yet get sufficient attention: the needs of many people with learning disabilities, who are subjected to what is increasingly being called mate crime. Why has it developed? Some 50 years ago, society’s answer for many people with learning disabilities was to shut them away out of sight—hide them away, so society did not have to confront them. Ensuring, rightly, that they live fulfilling lives in their local communities, participating in everything we all do, has put them at risk from a few ignorant individuals who do not understand what a learning disability is. That makes them vulnerable.
The hon. Lady mentioned the types of press coverage that we see. I welcome the fact that serious examples of disability hate crime are now being covered and referred to as such, but what we do not hear about every day is the so-called friend who relieves someone of a £10 note. That might not seem a particularly large crime, certainly not in financial value, but if a so-called friend of someone with a learning disability abuses their trust, that is a far greater crime, in human value, than if they were stealing £1 million. It is not just a financial crime; it is an attack on the person’s humanity and identity.
Something that the Skelly family stressed to me on Monday—indeed, we began the discussion by talking about it—was the labels that people put on others. Yes, society is very complex, and I am sure that we all find it difficult to deal with at times, but it is much more difficult for someone with a learning disability. We apply these labels to try to help ourselves to simplify the world around us and to help us to understand things that might be at the margins of our understanding, about which we know we ought to think in a particular way. We put the labels on them, then think we understand them. The labels are often the beginning of a prejudice—a way of assuming that someone acts in a certain way or that they are a particular way because of how they are. That is perhaps the most dangerous thing we do in our society. We cope with the people at the margins—people we do not quite understand—by just putting labels on them.
Two or three months ago, we heard about the sentencing of the murderers of Gemma Hayter, a lady in Rugby with a learning disability who had gone to visit her so-called friends and had been tied up, locked in a toilet, forced to drink her own urine, led to a railway line, wrapped in plastic bags and stabbed to death. Her attackers got the sentence they deserved, but sadly they could not face the 30-year tariff, which I believe such people should face, proposed in our amendment. That incident brought home to me the vulnerability of such people.
There are things that the Government can do, and I urge Ministers to consider them. It is vital that the Government take on board, as Mencap is requesting, the Law Commission proposals to extend the definition of harm to include exploitation, particularly financial exploitation. I hope that when we see a social care Bill, we can put the adult safeguarding boards on a statutory basis. Sadly, no organisational structure can stop evil occurring in a person’s head, but we can try to do something to ensure that when we identify people at risk, the different agencies involved are at least made aware of what is going on. If people are talking to people, and agencies are talking to agencies, we will at least have some hope that, just maybe, solutions can be found.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for securing the debate. Is he aware of a recent case in, I think, Bristol? A gentleman with learning disabilities went into a barbers, and the barber thought it amusing to shave “fool” on his head—an unbelievable story. I cannot remember the details, but the punishment was lamentably low.
Paul Maynard
I thank the hon. Lady for that classic example of how unfeeling and insensitive individuals can be. I hope that the punishment is that the local community boycotts that barber, because he does not deserve to have any customers if that is how he treats them.
A more fundamental issue that concerns me is that the Government are not approaching properly the philosophical status of day care centres. That might seem like a slightly abstruse point to make, but in many social services departments these days, the day care centre seems to be an unfashionable creation. Some want people to be out in the community all the time, as though a day care setting somehow denied them the right to be in the community. That concerns me greatly. For many people with a learning disability, particularly those of an older generation, a day care setting offers the very support network that so many of them crave, and in pursuit of which they often put themselves at risk from so-called friends.
I urge the Minister to consult with her colleagues to ensure that day care centres are not written out of the picture. We have an excellent one in Blackpool called the Rock Centre, which is indeed a rock for many in the community. Although the activities that people there engage in might not strike us as terribly meaningful—
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make a quick point; I very much support what he says. One challenge of disability and learning disability is that people in Whitehall and the professions often think that they know best. For the past 15 years, the direction of travel has been to reduce day care. I endorse totally what he says: for a lot of disabled people, particularly those with learning disabilities, the reduction in day care centres has reduced their quality of life. I support him in pushing the Minister to ensure that that understanding filters through to the professions and Whitehall.
Paul Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and agree wholeheartedly. It struck me when I spoke to users of the Rock that they feel happy, fulfilled and, above all, safe and secure in that environment. That is surely what we want for the most vulnerable in society: that they feel safe and secure, that they are not placed at risk and, most importantly, that anyone who dares to presume that they can inflict their prejudices and their crippled attitude to human life on those vulnerable individuals feels the full force not just of the law but of the local community’s criticism and condemnation.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who always speaks in an informed way. Today was no exception. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on obtaining the debate at an important time, and on her excellent speech. I hope that she will forgive me if I re-emphasise some of her points, each of which was well made.
Disability hate crime is a big issue, affecting about 60% of all disabled people in the UK. Within that number, people with learning disabilities are hugely affected: according to Mencap, nine out of 10 say that they have been bullied, harassed or harmed because of their impairment. I should declare that I am the joint chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.
The recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report “Hidden in plain sight” suggested that disability harassment is so common that many have come to accept it as part of their everyday lives. The report also found that numerous agencies, including the police, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities, have failed to recognise disability hate crime and respond effectively when it happens.
Mencap’s “Stand by me” campaign aims to rectify the issue by encouraging police forces to give greater attention to disability hate crimes and promoting the need for Government to do more to achieve improvement. In June this year, I had the privilege of hosting a reception. I was delighted that the Minister was there, as I am always delighted when she is present. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), whom I am delighted to see back in a post to which she is eminently suited, feels equally welcome.
The Government committed to publishing a hate crime action plan, but there is no evidence of it yet, although it is essential if we are to achieve strategic direction and a co-ordinated approach to tackling hate crimes, such as those aggravated by disability. Sentencing is a key issue that has been raised. Recently, the Government announced their intention to equalise minimum sentences for murders aggravated by disability as part of schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I welcome that strongly, of course, but it does not mean the end of the issue. Murder is just one part of a huge spectrum of abuse suffered by disabled people, and provision should be made to safeguard all disabled people who suffer any sort of disability hate crime.
Types of hate crime vary substantially, as we have heard. Murder and physical abuse are the most hard-hitting and widely publicised. However, name-calling and general harassment build up over time and can cause long-lasting psychological damage to the victim, as was seen in the case of Fiona Pilkington, who, sadly, killed her learning-disabled daughter and herself after years of abuse. Another, relatively recent phenomenon, referred to by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, is mate crime, in which perpetrators falsely befriend disabled people and exploit them financially, physically or sexually. Sentencing for disability hate crime should be comprehensive enough to safeguard against all those forms of crime.
The Government have also announced that they will reform section 146 of the 2003 Act, which imposes sentence uplifts for crimes aggravated by protected characteristics such as disability. Section 146 is widely unenforced: only 1,200 cases of disability hate crime have been prosecuted, compared with 48,400 racist and religious hate crimes. However, the Ministry of Justice has said that the Act will be updated so that where any offence is shown to be motivated by hostility towards the victim on the grounds of transgender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, sentences must be more severe. The implication is that the law will be strengthened so that courts “must” impose a sentence uplift, thus removing their discretionary power. Will the Minister clarify the situation? I would welcome that.
Another issue that must be addressed is the power of the Attorney-General to review sentences deemed unduly lenient. That power does not extend to sentences for disability-motivated offences, which creates an inconsistent picture in the legislation on disability hate crime. There is a possible implication that disability hate crime is not as much of a priority as other strands of hate crime such as race or religion, important though those are. Disability hate crime must be recognised as an equal issue across all forms of sentencing.
Mark Durkan
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the fact that the Attorney-General can review lenient sentences for racial or religiously aggravated attacks, even where the offence is relatively minor, but the law insists that disability-aggravated crime may be reviewed only if it is most serious. Does that not essentially put the law and the Attorney-General in the Sepp Blatter position of saying, “Yes, it’s wrong, but it’s not really serious; it’s unacceptable, but it’s somehow understandable.”?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend’s point is salient and I am sure that we all take it on board. It is essential that the issues under discussion are dealt with as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill; otherwise, the opportunity for disability hate crime to achieve the type of parity for which we are calling will pass.
What needs to happen? I acknowledge the Home Office directive on collecting figures on disability hate crime. That could achieve a better understanding of the national picture, taking in every part of the United Kingdom. However, more needs to be done to be proactive, even beyond that.
Police forces need better to understand disability, including learning disability, so that they can effectively support victims of disability hate crime. That includes flagging up repeat cases of disabled people being victims of abuse. Mencap’s police promise initiative, for example, encourages police forces to sign up to a list of pledges to show their commitment to tackling disability hate crime.
Courts and the criminal justice sector should employ special measures, as per the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendations in the “Hidden in plain sight” report, better to accommodate disabled people. That includes effective support for witnesses, which can be crucial in so many cases.
It is also hugely important to tackle wider public attitudes about disabled people, as hon. Members have mentioned. There is a lot in the media about people being “benefit scroungers”, and disabled people are often deemed guilty by association, which breeds contempt among the public, some of whom perceive disabled people to be cheating the system to ensure that they get state handouts. That is wrong and unacceptable.
I again welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston on securing it. I strongly believe that we should face the issues and problems of sentencing and respond accordingly, and her debate today has given us a wonderful opportunity to focus on that.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and congratulate her on securing it. I was present in the main Chamber when she managed to secure the important concession from the Lord Chancellor on schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for their work. They will be glad to know that, as well as the Members present, those in another place, particularly Lord Touhig, have played a key part in changing the Government’s mind. We met the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), only some 10 days prior to that concession, to press the case on schedule 21, and I am delighted that the Government have moved so swiftly to regularise the position.
That, of course, gives rise to the question: why not move in other areas? Why not regularise the law so that disability hate crime is treated in the same way as an aggravated offence, as is the case with race or religion? That would require an amendment to primary legislation, and yes, I know it would be a big step, but it would be an important one. If we are making concessions elsewhere, we should regularise the law in that area as well. We treat equalities as a single concept now and we have an Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Surely moving beyond schedule 21 means that, as a society, we should ensure that we do not seem to treat disabled people as a people apart, almost saying that different attitudes, legislation and approaches are required for them. The more we treat disabled people like those of us who are not disabled, the more likely society as a whole is to follow that example and move away from treating them as almost subnormal or abnormal.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with a point that I was about to address and that has been alluded to by other Members. The focus needs to be shifted away from always analysing a case’s evidence by looking at the victim, and towards the wrongdoing and what the offender has done. That welcome shift of emphasis was displayed in guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecutors in England and Wales in March 2010. It is similar to the shift in focus that occurred some years ago in relation to domestic violence. People used to ask of the victim, “Why did she stay with him?”, instead of focusing on the behaviour of the perpetrator, which, I am glad to say, is what is now happening in cases of domestic abuse. The same must happen in relation to disability.
The danger we face in focusing on the victim and their behaviour is that in assuming that all disabled people are vulnerable just because of their disability, we start asking dangerous questions, such as, “Why don’t they avoid these situations? Why do disabled people put themselves in that position in the first place?” By asking those dangerous questions, we are at risk of driving disabled people back into their homes and into institutions, and away from mainstream society. That is wrong and I hope that today’s debate will give a clear message to the Government that we must avoid it. We are in danger of being as bad as the people in ages past who used to apply the dunce’s cap to disabled people in the classroom.
Such attitudes lead to other dangerous assumptions, such as that of some involved in the criminal justice system that disabled people are somehow unreliable or incredible witnesses, simply because of their disability. That is another dangerous and fatal assumption, which, I am afraid, has played far too great a part in the criminal justice system and has prejudiced and stopped cases involving disabled people. It has ended in miscarriages of justice involving disabled people.
I have mentioned the guidance, which was welcome. It followed a speech made by Lord Macdonald when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, which I think helped to clarify the CPS’s position and its understanding of disability. I welcomed his comments about the concept of hate. We have to be careful when using the word “hate”; we must make clear what it covers. The danger with the word is that hate is an extreme concept, so we think that there cannot be many people in our society capable of it. The definition, however, is a wider one, and includes hostility or prejudice. What does that mean? There are other words for hostility, such as unfriendliness, antagonism, meanness and sheer ignorance. That is particularly important when we consider that many acts are perpetrated over a long period. We have heard about many sad cases, both today and elsewhere, that involve the victims of a crime finally suffering the last straw that broke the camel’s back. It is important to remember that “hate” has a wide definition and involves a whole section of attitudes that I believe are bred from ignorance and sheer lack of understanding of the needs of disabled people. That leads to offences that take place on many levels; low-level offences can cause so much misery to the lives of disabled people.
We have been rightly reminded of the provisions of section 146 of the 2003 Act. To be fair to the drafters of that welcome provision, it says that the court “must” treat the fact that the offence was committed in an aggravating way when the offender, immediately at the time of the offence, or before or after it, demonstrated hostility based on the disability or presumed disability of the victim. The provisions are there; they are mandatory. The problem is with the previous stage, because there must be evidence of hostility beforehand, which is where the work of prosecutors becomes extremely important.
The guidelines include a welcome set of considerations that all prosecutors should consider when reviewing cases involving disability. They are the sort of factors that we have discussed today, such as previous incidents involving the victim and the offender. Are the incidents escalating in severity or frequency? Is the targeting becoming systematic and regular, rather than opportunistic offending? On the status of the offender, we have heard about so-called “friends” who befriend people and then manipulate the circumstances. A lot of proper questions are being asked in the guidelines. The key now is to ensure that in every case, those considerations are applied, looked at and checked in each case file.
Key actions could be taken now to help both prosecutors and sentencers. For example, section 146 should be flagged up as a consideration in every case file, so that when prosecutors assess and prepare the evidence, any sentencer is aware of it. In open court, the prosecuting solicitor or barrister should remind the court of their powers under section 146. Such nuts-and-bolts practical measures could see the sort of increase in the use of section 146 that was rightly referred to by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), and which we all want to happen.
Court practitioners and judges need more training on disability issues, most notably the use of section 146. The key point that I found, depressingly, time and time again is that the equation between disability and reliability has to be broken. We have to break that link in the hearts and minds of those involved in the system.
Mark Durkan
In respect of the whole question of sentence uplifts, the ECHR report stated that sentence uplifts have never been applied to any prosecution of rape or sexual assault where the victim was a disabled person. Is the point about the question of unreliability of people as witnesses, which the hon. Gentleman has just made, a factor in that?
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will address his point directly. There is no doubt in my mind that prosecutors who face a case where the victim has disabilities feel that somehow the prosecution will be an uphill struggle. Far too often, the use of special measures is not considered as much as it should be. For example, in a case that I was involved in, a person with a moderate learning disability was the victim of a rape. Through the help of an intermediary, the person was able to give evidence through a video link and a conviction was secured. The intermediary was a speech and language therapist. She was not only able to give confidence to the victim, but was there to assist the court if there was any ambiguity or lack of clarity to the jury in what the victim was saying. It was a most encouraging exercise, not only in achieving a fair result, but in making sure that the voice of that person was heard.
The role of intermediaries should be expanded and encouraged, not viewed as an unusual event in our courts. I think that there was an instinctive suspicion among practitioners that somehow the use of an intermediary would dilute the victim’s evidence, or would in some way interfere with the process of giving evidence. Those concerns are unfounded. People should think of intermediaries as officers who help the court, rather than people who somehow manipulate or interfere with the evidence. That is not my experience, nor that of many other people who have successfully used intermediaries. To put it bluntly, if the intermediary had not been there to assist the witness in that very serious offence of rape, I do not believe that we would have secured a conviction. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
It has already been said that in the past four years, despite the fact that there are 10 million disabled people in the UK, only 1,200 cases of hate crime have been prosecuted. On the basis of a recent Scope survey, conducted in May 2011, that is an incredibly low figure. The survey revealed that almost 60% of disabled people had experienced hostility, aggression or violence due to their impairment, and that half of disabled people said that they experience hostility on at least a weekly basis. Almost 40% of disabled people said that hostility had got worse in the past year. If we extrapolate those figures, we see that millions of people are suffering in silence or, when their voice is heard, that the situation is not being effectively dealt with by the authorities.
We have come a long way since society wished to institutionalise disabled people and wholly shut them out from the mainstream, but we still have a long way to go to ensure that when disabled people, rightly, access mainstream life, they do not become vulnerable because of the circumstances in which they put themselves. We must all, as a society, stop asking these dangerous questions: why do they come out into the mainstream and why do they put themselves in those positions? Let us focus on the offender. Let us focus on the offending. With that approach, we can achieve real results in the field of disability hate crime.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I start by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. I recognise that she has long been a champion on the issue. As someone who sat on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will table amendments in the House of Lords to offer disabled victims of crime the same protection as those who are targeted because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. The provisions were pushed for by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
Although I am particularly pleased to learn that the Government will be tabling those amendments, I hope that they will seek to build on experience north of the border. In 2010, Scotland became the first country in Europe to have specific disability hate crime legislation on its statute book. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 makes provision for statutory aggravations that can be attached to offences motivated by prejudice towards disabled or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and requires courts to say what impact, if any, those aggravating factors have had on sentencing.
In Scotland, any criminal offence that is partly or wholly motivated by prejudice on such grounds is to be dealt with as a hate crime all the way through the system. For example, the offence could be assault, vandalism, verbal threats, abuse that could be charged as breach of the peace, or any other crime. If the person committing the offence uses disability-prejudiced language, or if there is any other evidence of a prejudiced motive, that makes it a hate crime. If anyone witnessing a crime thinks it was a hate crime, the police must record it as a hate incident. If there is any evidence of a hate motive—for example, prejudiced language—it will be charged as a hate crime. If the person charged is found guilty, the hate motive will be taken into account in sentencing, and the court must say publicly what difference the hate motive made to the sentence.
Kate Green
It is interesting to hear about the experience in Scotland, from which I am sure we can learn. I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman said—that if anyone identifies the crime as a hate crime it must be treated as a hate crime. Is it not also important to recognise that although victims themselves often specifically exclude the possibility that it was a hate crime, that in itself should not be taken at face value, because there may be all sorts of pressures on them not to identify it as such?
Mike Crockart
I absolutely agree. In fact, the hon. Lady’s intervention feeds very nicely into my next point. Twenty years ago, when I was going through basic training as a police officer, racial incidents were going through the self-same process. When someone was the target of a racial incident and did not necessarily feel that it was one, the fact that someone else had witnessed the incident was sufficient to make it a racial incident. That was the test that I was taught to use 20 years ago. I have to admit that at the time it felt excessive, but it was only thus that such crimes and incidents became generally unacceptable. In that way, there was a move to general agreement that much of the racist language of the ’70s and ’80s, which was tolerated by the silent majority, was derisive and abusive. Such a move is required in attitudes to disability hate crime, and is massively overdue. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that the amendments that the Government have now promised to table in the Lords will go further and build on the experience in Scotland, affording a similar level of protection in England and Wales.
The announcement from the Government signals recognition, welcome to us all, of the need to tackle those despicable crimes. It is also heartening for me to help push forward the agenda that my predecessor in Edinburgh West worked on in the previous Parliament. Responding to a parliamentary question tabled by my predecessor, John Barrett, in April 2008, the then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said:
“The Home Office is responsible for the police recorded statistics. Statistics are collected on the number of racially or religiously aggravated offences but no information is available on those offences which are specifically ‘disability hate’ crimes.”—[Official Report, 29 April 2008; Vol. 475, c. 330W.]
I welcome what the Government have already done, specifically the coalition commitment to improve the recording of such crimes. Since April 2011, all police forces now report hate crimes centrally. Published data from the Association of Chief Police Officers show increases in the number of disability hate crimes reported in 2010—a 21.3% increase on the recorded figures in 2009. This must be one of the few areas where we can welcome a large increase in reported crime, as it shows that the push for people to report the crimes is having an effect.
I await the promised hate crime action plan and the Government response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry, but it is positive that the issue is finally receiving the attention that it deserves, although of course it is a shame that this or any Government have to tackle it at all. Such horrific cases as the killings of Brent Martin, Steven Hoskin or Fiona Pilkington should assault our consciousness as a decent society and daily remind us how serious the situation can become if left unchecked. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission noted in its “Hidden in plain sight” inquiry, we need to look at preventive strategies alongside any legislative changes, ensuring that we nip in the bud such attitudes and behaviours before they escalate. We also need to address the wider geographical, social and economic factors, identified in the Commission’s research, that can leave disabled people and others at greater risk.
A change of attitude in this country is vital. After all, it is not disabled people who create their oppression, it is others. As previously said, and as Sir Ken Macdonald so eloquently argued in one of his final speeches as Director of Public Prosecutions, we must overcome a prevailing assumption that disabled people’s intrinsic vulnerability explains the risk that they face, an assumption unsupported by evidence. At best, that had led to protectionism, constraining rather than expanding the individual freedom and opportunity that greater safety and security should provide. Only by extending the same expectations of safety and security to disabled people as to everyone else can we truly address the deficits in our current approach and wake up to the need to act. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on those points as well.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are currently finishing an inquiry into independent living, which has looked at various aspects such as access to welfare, housing and employment and the differences in provision between different local authorities and nations. We have even had the Minister along recently to answer various questions about Government policy. However, I now realise that we have omitted investigation of a basic element. A constituent part of ensuring access to independent living is laid out in article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and”—
crucially—“security of person.” What is clear from many of the dreadful examples that we have heard today is that that security is put at risk daily by the criminal acts of a few, which are unfortunately tolerated by many more.
As a member of the JCHR, I have also taken note of the EHRC’s endorsement of the mechanisms of the Human Rights Act 1998, which it says are essential for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. The EHRC also argues that the existing law is well crafted to balance Britain’s international obligations with its constitutional conventions. In particular, the existing Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty and the role of British judges in interpreting the legislation, and has allowed many people to exercise their basic rights without the time and expense of taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the Minister can reassure me and other members of the Joint Committee that any revision of the Human Rights Act will not change that crucial lifeline for those who are disabled.
In conclusion, I welcome the issue finally receiving the attention it deserves. I await further concrete steps by the Government to deal with this hidden crime.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.40. Therefore, I call Mr Stephen Lloyd, assuming that he can constrain himself to that time.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Gray, for allowing me to speak. I appreciate that it is far more important for the Chamber to listen to the Front Benchers, so I shall be very brief, which is a challenge, because I feel strongly about the subject. I have been very impressed by the speeches today, in particular those from my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). I want to focus on one area only.
What is incredibly important around disability hate crime is the use of language and how we approach it. I do not believe that Whitehall knows best. I shall give the Chamber a quick example to ponder. I remember a good friend of mine who is a wheelchair user telling me a few years ago the reason he hated being patronised far more than he hated someone being angry with or unpleasant to him. When he was patronised he felt shamed, and he did not know how to respond, which is perfectly normal. If I am patronised, even though I know the person is wrong, I feel shamed—that is human nature. He gave an example of being ignored in a restaurant, but his partner, who is not in a wheelchair, was addressed—he would feel that sense of shame. He said, “The thing is, Stephen, even though I did not like either, the advantage of when someone is unpleasant is that I feel angry, and that gives me a sense of empowerment.”
That point might be a little counter-intuitive within such a brief discussion, but my real point is that I want the Government and all politicians across the piece who feel so strongly about the issue to be intelligent about it. We do not want to go back to what we had many years ago, when disabled people were seen only as victims, which was counter-productive and appalling. Disabled people have fought hard over the past 15 years to stop that. I want the Government to take it on board that this is about listening to how disabled people want them to deal with hate crimes. That will help them to achieve a much more productive and sensible way forward to nail this, rather than ever going back down the road of saying, “You poor disabled person, you are a victim and you just need protecting.” That is not what the disability fight has been all about. Lord knows, I know, because I have been with it for 20 years.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I am delighted to be in the Chamber under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I have known you for more years than either of us cares to remember, so it is a pleasure to find ourselves in this situation this morning.
I echo the remarks of others and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on initiating this important debate. I thank other colleagues—my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland)—for their powerful comments. I also thank colleagues from Northern Ireland who participated in the debate. The question was asked about this being a UK issue; it is definitely a UK issue. Indeed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission report makes recommendations for the devolved Administrations, which I hope they will be able to pursue.
As others in the Chamber have said, it is to our collective shame as a society that we are having to consider such a report 11 years into the 21st century. We are supposed to be committed to a road map for equality for disabled people, yet we are considering a document that highlights the antagonism, harassment, assault and even murder inflicted on those whose only crime was that they were disabled and were therefore seen as a legitimate target by those who sought to harm them.
It is difficult to read the report without becoming angry about the fact that, after the passing of two disability discrimination Acts, an equality Act, the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, which is now the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the signing and ratification of the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities, the Autism Act 2009, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and the introduction of public sector duties, our society still sees disabled people being abused daily and regularly becoming victims of violent crime. That is the picture that has been presented to us in the report.
The lessons are stark. For example, public authorities such as police and social services have often been aware of harassment of individuals, but no action has been taken. Even when the harassment escalates, it is often the case that little effective action is taken to protect the disabled person, which often results, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, in an escalation of the victimisation of the disabled person. When action has been taken, it has often been unco-ordinated, with little exchange or intelligence sharing among those public authorities that were duty-bound to be part of the support network for the disabled person.
As has been alluded to, research shows that some 60% of disabled people have been the victim of some sort of hostility, violence or aggression from strangers. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys said, there is increasing awareness that some disabled people are victimised and abused by people who are known to them. To echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, it is particularly worrying that, according to Mencap, nine out of 10 people with learning disabilities have experienced such abusive behaviour, and there is evidence to suggest that such behaviour is on the increase. I will come to that later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, the Equality and Human Rights Commission report says that disabled people are more likely to be victims of crime than non-disabled people. That reflects a pattern of disadvantage for disabled people in many spheres, including education, health outcomes and access to services. More worrying—I hope that we do not lose sight of this point—is the fact that many disabled people have come to accept that that is an unwelcome but almost inevitable part of their daily lives. What a devastating indictment it is that we have disabled citizens who believe that abuse and harassment, or worse, come with the territory and are things they must put up with.
I congratulate Mike Smith, lead commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry, who was extremely challenging in his foreword to the report. His words are worth quoting:
“For me, two things come out of this inquiry that are far more shocking than the 10 cases that we cover in more detail, awful as they are. The first is just how much harassment seems to be going on. It’s not just some extreme things happening to a handful of people: it’s an awful lot of unpleasant things happening to a great many people, almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands each year.”
That echoes the experience of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, which is that even someone with his awareness found out that someone in his street was being abused. Mike Smith’s second point was that
“no one knows about it. Schools don’t know how many disabled pupils are bullied; local authorities and registered social landlords don’t know how many antisocial behaviour victims are disabled; health services don’t know how many assault victims are disabled; police don’t know how many victims of crime are disabled; the courts don’t know how many disabled victims have access to special measures”
and so on. That is the picture that Mike Smith paints today.
Although the cases are horrible individually, collectively they are truly horrific. Michael Gilbert was a young man with an undiagnosed mental health condition whose dismembered body was found near Luton. He was murdered after years of torture by the Watt family. He had been in contact with police on various occasions, but was never afforded the protection he deserved. Steven Hoskin was a 38-year-old with learning disabilities who was found dead at the bottom of a 100-foot railway viaduct in St Austell, Cornwall. He had been tortured for years before his death, and suffered various
injuries inflicted upon him by people he knew. He had been tied up, dragged round by a lead, imprisoned, burned with cigarettes, humiliated, and violently and repeatedly abused in his own home.
One would think that going to the hairdresser was a safe activity for a disabled person. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston raised this matter and said that a young man did a normal thing and went to a hairdresser, but the hairdresser thought he would have a bit of fun at that young man’s expense. Something that links back to the comments of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is the fact that although we may believe that the sentence was not adequate—I believe it was 200 hours of unpaid work, compensation and court costs—the magistrates increased it by using section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed tougher sentences for disability hate crimes. Police, prosecutors and magistrates won praise for the way they co-ordinated their action and used that provision. A little light was shed on the situation.
I ask the Minister to address the Government’s responsibilities concerning the environment in which disabled people live their lives. We have heard a great deal about the cultural environment in which we work, and we have heard about the Scope report. We have not heard about the second part of the report, but it says that 65% of disabled people thought that others did not believe that they were disabled, and 73% thought that others presumed that they did not work.
Leaving aside the debate on whether the Government are on the right track with their welfare reform—that is for another Chamber and another time—the daily feeding to the media of press releases and distortion of figures, and the calling into question whether people really are disabled, has changed the landscape for disabled people. Glasgow university’s monitoring report showed a dramatic increase in the number of media articles related to disability fraud. When its focus group was asked for a disability story, it typically came up with benefit fraud. Is it any wonder that we are seeing cases such as the one reported last week in South Shields, where Peter Greener, a wheelchair user with a brain condition, suffered months of taunts about being a benefit scrounger, stone throwing and harassment by his neighbour, who thought he was exaggerating his disability?
We have heard stories about the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions being enraged when he was told by his Department that no precise figures for the number of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder who receive free cars were available. The paper concerned had to correct the story the following week, at the prompting of not the Department, but a disability organisation. It does not help disabled people to live their lives when statements are made that disability living allowance is available just by filling in a form. The Minister knows, and I know, that that is not a true picture.
I say with the greatest respect—I exempt the Minister from making such outrageous comments; she has conducted the debate with a measured approach—that she should challenge some of the more outrageous and outlandish comments by some of her senior colleagues, because they are creating an atmosphere that is to the greater disadvantage of disabled people, and that causes fear and uncertainty in their lives.
We can have the debate about welfare reform, but we must ensure that the language—the hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to this—with which we discuss these issues is that of moderation, which recognises that people have their own dignity, and that they are entitled to be treated with dignity and not be encapsulated in some cheap media headline.
I appreciate that the Minister has a very short time in which to respond. I look forward to that response and congratulate her and other colleagues on allowing us to have this important debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I commend the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for securing this debate. It has given us all an opportunity to focus on this issue in what has been an extremely informed, lively and useful debate.
I will try to respond to as many issues as possible in the time that I have available. There is a great deal of ground to cover. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) put his finger on the issue when he said that we need to change attitudes, as we saw happen for the victims of domestic violence. That brought home to me the issue that we need to deal with here. I absolutely agree with what he said.
In 2008, the then Director of Public Prosecutions said something that many hon. Members would agree with: the issue of disability hate crime is a scar on the conscience of the criminal justice system. It is important that we recognise, both within the House and outside, the magnitude of the problem that we face. Any form of discrimination against disabled people is absolutely unacceptable. Hate crime is a particularly disgusting and disgraceful abuse of disabled people, which has no place in civilised society. Working with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations and raising awareness through debates such as today’s is a way of trying to continue to change attitudes, which was a theme in hon. Members’ contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) talked about the importance of the way in which we handle this matter. He made the important point that disabled people do not want to be treated as victims. Our starting point must be that disabled people have to be absolutely clear that they are adequately protected by the law. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston wanted to know about practical things that the Government are doing now. She is absolutely right that warm words are not enough, so I will cut straight to the quick.
We have made a commitment in our coalition agreement to improve recording, and we are delivering on that. I do not need to rehearse with the hon. Lady the work that we are doing in that area. We have also supported the work that Radar is doing to improve reporting across the country, and I am pleased that one of our staff from the Office for Disability Issues has been seconded to help in that work. We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that it is doing all it can. We have heard from hon. Members today that there are more than 1,500 recorded disability hate crime offences. I think that that is the tip of the iceberg and we need to continue to work hard on that.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), raised the issue of sentencing. I will take a couple of minutes to dwell on that, because it is complex. We have heard that we can perhaps learn something from Scotland, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West. We are committed to ensuring that everybody has the freedom to live their lives free from the fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, including disability. On section 146, undue leniency and aggravating factors—issues that hon. Members have raised today—we are absolutely open to looking at how the law is working in practice, particularly around section 146 and any inconsistencies by the court. We are always looking at evidence that suggests that courts consider their powers insufficient to deal with such cases.
We will be considering carefully the recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and we will respond to them. I am pleased to note that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), has already met Mencap and the National Autistic Society to discuss these matters in detail. I want to go one stage further for the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston to underline my concern and commitment to ensure that we see action. I will undertake to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Justice and also Mencap and any other organisations that have an interest to ensure that we are delivering not just warm words but action in this area.
Hon. Members have noted the important progress that we have made with regard to sentencing. They may be interested to know that in September I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice to underline the need for change to resolve the issues around schedule 21. I was pleased that the Secretary of State for Justice was able to confirm the Government’s intention to publish amendments in the other place, so that murders motivated by hostility towards disabled people will have the same sentencing starting point of 30 years as those aggravated by race, religion and sexual orientation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made an extremely impassioned contribution to the debate. I welcome his insight. He raised the issue of mate crime. Mencap’s work in this area has been extremely helpful. Crimes targeted at disabled people by friends, relatives and carers are a significant challenge for the criminal justice agencies and the Government. I reassure him that the issue is seen as a priority.
I was pleased to see Mencap’s “Stand by Me” charter. It is something that individual police forces and chief constables are able to support, and I encourage them to do so. Recognising hate crime and improving its reporting must be a continued priority. We have 19 organisations that work to support victims of hate crime. We have made sure that additional funding is available for the work that they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred to the organisation that I met with him in Blackpool and the excellent work that it does with the support of Stephen Brookes. I want to reiterate his comments.
Other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), raised the issue of devolution and the importance of a UK-wide approach. Perhaps he will be reassured to know that the ACPO lead on hate crime is a Northern Ireland police officer. Although there are devolved issues in terms of crime and justice, ACPO is ensuring that we are all working closely together.
Hon. Members will know that the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its report in September. On the back of that report, I took the opportunity to write to relevant Ministers to underline my support for its work and to highlight the requirements of the public sector equality duty, which must be considered in their response. The recommendations are being considered at the moment and will be reflected in the cross-government action plan, which I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to know will be published early next year. It was important that we had the EHRC report to reflect on first.
I have demonstrated that there has been absolutely no pause in the work of the Government to tackle disability hate crime while the action plan is being considered. Indeed, action across Government continues to be critical, which is an issue that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston raised. I want to reassure her that we have important structures in place around the independent advisory group, which continues to advise across Government. We are also about to engage in a major new piece of work to look at how we can change attitudes towards disabled people, which was at the heart of much of today’s debate. Over the next few months, I look forward to working with disabled people on those issues.
The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned the portrayal of disabled people in the media. She and I are as one on this.
Public Service Broadcasting (North-East)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am pleased to have secured this debate, and I have a significant interest to declare. I recall Mike Neville explaining to me personally, or so it seemed at the time, what the posh word for a Geordie was: a Novocastrian. I remember learning the points of the compass—north, east, west and south—from the “Look North” weather map, before I was old enough to own a compass of my own.
Clearly, however, public service broadcasting in the north-east is about more than the memories of one Member of Parliament; it is an important part of the identity, culture and economy of the region. In its 2009 review, Ofcom set out the purpose of public service broadcasting, which included:
“To reflect and strengthen our cultural identity through original programming at UK, national and regional level.”
It characterised public service broadcasting:
“High quality—well-funded and well-produced; original—new UK content rather than repeats or acquisitions; innovative—breaking new ideas or re-inventing exciting approaches; challenging—making viewers think; engaging—remaining accessible; and widely available,”
so that a large majority of citizens have the chance to watch it. Will the Minister clarify whether he stands by those purposes and characteristics of public service broadcasting? If he does, will they continue to apply to public service broadcasting in the north-east after the current round of BBC cost cutting?
The purpose and characteristics of public service broadcasting are also enshrined in the BBC’s duties, and include:
“To reflect and strengthen cultural identities.”
The BBC, however, is not the only public service broadcaster; ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five must also meet public service broadcasting requirements. My concerns about the future of public service broadcasting in the north-east therefore apply to private sector broadcasters as well as to the BBC. In addition, all broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code, which also recognises the importance of regional and local identity.
In his reply to my letter expressing the dismay of my constituents at the portrayal of Newcastle in “Geordie Shore,” Chris Woolard, group director of Ofcom, explained that cities could complain about how they were portrayed and that their individual identity should be recognised. However, despite long-standing lip service to the importance of regional identity and public service broadcasting, we have seen a steady diminution in its quality and availability in the north-east. The BBC now proposes further cuts in its “Delivering Quality First” consultation, and it is not an exaggeration to say that such cuts threaten the existence of public service broadcasting in the north-east.
In the past, commercial companies such as Tyne Tees Television were often the greatest champions of local culture and regional identity, by giving a platform to local music and drama, holding local politicians to account, and providing children’s programmes, educational, artistic or comedy programmes—indeed, programmes of every genre. Local BBC stations would cover news, sport, politics and documentaries, and support locally produced drama, resulting in a wide and diverse range of programming. I remember watching “When the Boat Comes in”, “The Tube”, “The Likely Lads”, “Razamatazz”, “Northern Life”, “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” and many other great examples of local content, as well as listening to a wide range of local radio programming. As well as reflecting regional culture back on ourselves, such diversity helped build local skills, thereby supporting a regional industry that provided high-quality jobs, and train the next generation of broadcasters.
Unfortunately, following consolidation in the television and broadcasting industry, and in the face of rising competition and falling revenues, regional commercial broadcasting has been much weakened. In 2009, Ofcom further reduced regional broadcasting requirements on commercial public service broadcasters. Some support for local television used to be available through Northern Film and Media, funded by the Film Council and the regional development agency, but the Government have now cut that support.
It is not therefore surprising that this summer, in Ofcom’s latest assessment of the state of public service broadcasting, the criterion
“reflecting and strengthening our cultural identity”
scored the lowest marks ever. Only a third of viewers think that public service broadcasting channels do well in
“portraying my region well to the rest of the UK,”
and in providing
“programmes about my region or nation.”
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; she is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that at a time when the north-east is suffering dreadfully from the economic downturn, it is particularly important that regional broadcasting is able to produce documentaries to show people, both in the region and elsewhere, what is happening? Regional broadcasting can also help to build on a lot of the good that exists in an area, and provide a good and balanced picture. Simply lumping the north-east with other northern areas will not do.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One great strength of regional broadcasting is that local broadcasters understand what is happening in a region such as the north-east, and can go further in identifying issues that are relevant to local people. That is especially true in the north-east at this difficult time. Media outside the north-east have a tendency to portray the area in negative terms—perhaps rightly given the disproportionate cuts that the area is experiencing—but that does not reflect the strengths and the entrepreneurial spirit that is a feature of north-eastern culture.
Against that background, the BBC has proposed the implementation of further drastic cuts to regional provision. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has said that he is keen to support local television, but his proposals are—to be kind—not yet viable and not without controversy. There are major gaps in coverage—the city of Durham, for example, will have no local television coverage—and even in the best possible scenario, local services will not be running until after 2015. Does the Minister think that those local TV services will be complementary to regional public service broadcasting, or is he happy to weaken regional broadcasting on the basis that local TV will replace it?
If we accept the purposes and characteristics of public sector broadcasting as set out by Ofcom and if we consider the reductions in commercial regional broadcasting, the cuts to public support for local talent and the limitations of the local TV proposals, there can be no doubt that the existence of regional public sector broadcasting depends on BBC funding. However, the BBC cuts include, among other things, a 40% cut in investigative programming.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In the past, I might have complained that Darlington, in the south of the north-east, did not get its fair share of attention in regional output. That can only become more of a problem if the north-east is put together with places such as Crewe, Sheffield, Hull and Lancaster. Great as they are, they have nothing at all to do with what it is like to live in the north-east.
On investigative journalism, first-class work has been done by people in the north-east. I am thinking of issues such as that involving Southern Cross. That is particularly pertinent to me because the company is based in Darlington.
Mrs Chapman
With your permission, Mr Gray, I will just finish the point. I think that some of the things that were exposed thanks to the BBC would not have been exposed had we not had that superb output, content and journalism in the north-east.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. The first is that it is important to reflect the rich diversity within a region. The north-east is diverse, but it is much harder to reflect that diversity when we are looking at extended supra-regions that may cover half the country. Secondly, it is very important that investigative journalism has the scale and presence locally to be able to identify issues of great significance to local people’s lives, such as Southern Cross, and to be able to invest the right local resources in tracking down the causes of the issues and ensuring that people are made aware of them. Therefore, the cuts to investigative journalism in the north-east are particularly worrying. “Inside Out” is the last remaining dedicated in-depth regional programme on British TV, and the North East and Cumbria edition has won Royal Television Society awards for the last six years running. However, it faces cuts that will see it lose 40% of its staff.
The BBC also proposes 20% staff cuts to local radio stations. That is about 10 jobs each in Newcastle and Tees. It means that programming will be shared across the entire north-east in the afternoons and across the whole of England in the evenings.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Before the hon. Lady leaves the investigative journalism issue, I want to reinforce the point that she is making. Very few other organisations have the investigative journalist staff who can maintain the contacts and have sufficient local knowledge to do the kind of work that the BBC’s “Inside Out” team has been doing.
Chi Onwurah
The right hon. Gentleman makes the excellent point that the investigative journalism supported by the BBC is essential to our ongoing understanding of what is happening in our region so that we can get to the bottom of many of the issues that will not be raised by national media.
I emphasise that cuts to local radio will have a disproportionate effect on older people. Many of them look to local radio for a sense of connection with their community. Ofcom has shown that older people are more likely to listen to the radio at least five days a week, with almost nine in 10 of those aged over 55 doing so. More than a third of Radio Newcastle’s listeners are over 65.
The BBC also envisages a two-thirds cut in local weather presenters. Given the almost sacred position that the weather holds in the national as well as the regional psyche, the end of local weather reporting for much of the day seems deliberately designed to undermine local identity. It is ironic that the cuts are taking place as the BBC is moving many areas of coverage to BBC North in Manchester. We welcome the BBC’s attempts to extend its presence from the capital, but I hope that the Minister does not need me to point out to him that for my constituents, Manchester is a long way south. Apparently, when Caroline Thomson, the BBC’s chief operating officer, visited Newcastle recently, she was surprised to learn that it takes longer to get from Newcastle to Salford than it does to get from Newcastle to London; I am sure that the Minister is more familiar with the public rail network. I hope that he would agree that MediaCity, welcome though it is, should not be an excuse for reducing provision in the north-east. Equally, although I appreciate that “Tracy Beaker” and “Inspector George Gently” are made in the north-east, that is not an excuse for withdrawing quality investigative journalism.
At the meeting of the all-party group on the BBC on 3 November, Mark Thompson admitted that the proposed cuts take regional coverage to a bare minimum. Is that what the Minister wishes for public service broadcasting in the north-east? As it is, BBC audience appreciation levels fall the further we go from London and the south-east.
I therefore hope that the Minister will tell me whether he supports the objectives and characteristics of public service broadcasting as set out by Ofcom. Will he confirm that local TV proposals are not a justification for diminishing regional TV? Will he confirm that the people of the north-east should be able to expect quality and representation in regional broadcasting? Will he agree to do all he can to ensure that the BBC does not further undermine public service broadcasting in the north-east? The Minister may argue that that is the responsibility of the BBC and Ofcom. But it is he who is accountable to the people of the north-east for culture and media in the north-east.
Public service broadcasting in the north-east must be high quality, well funded, well produced, original, innovative, challenging, engaging and widely available programming that reflects and strengthens our regional cultural identity. That requires a minimum level of provision, and the proposed BBC cuts take us well below that. I hope that the Minister can promise the survival of good-quality public service broadcasting in the north-east.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this important debate on public service broadcasting in the north-east. I think that I have said this before, but I will say it again: she is a doughty champion for her constituents and for her region. She certainly does not need to convince me that Newcastle and the rest of the north-east are great places to live and work. I spent my summer holiday last year in Newcastle. This year, I did not have a summer holiday, but last year, when I did, it was in Newcastle. I also spent new year in Newcastle. I am a regular visitor to the Sage in Gateshead. The transformation of Newcastle and Gateshead in using culture to create almost from scratch a vibrant £1 billion a year tourism and inward investment industry is a great beacon to the rest of the UK. It is no surprise that on 5 December the Turner prize ceremony—I think that it will be televised—will be held at the BALTIC centre for contemporary art in Gateshead. Obviously, I do not have the extensive knowledge of the area that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have, but she certainly does not need to convince me of its merits.
We watched the same programmes when we were growing up. I fondly remember watching with my late father “When The Boat Comes In”, with James Bolam. It was the Vaizey family’s favourite programme. I am delighted to see that James Bolam’s career has gone from strength to strength. I now watch him regularly in “Grandpa In My Pocket” with my five-year-old and three-year-old. Of course, “The Tube” also did so much to forge our cultural identity.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central invites me to endorse the purposes of public service broadcasting, as set out by Ofcom. Given the tone in which she did so, I could not help but feel that she was somehow setting a trap for me, but I can see no reason not to endorse the purposes of public service broadcasting. Perhaps she invites me to—
Chi Onwurah
I simply want to assure the Minister that no trap was intended when I invited him to endorse the important principles behind the purposes and characteristics of public service broadcasting. They are incredibly important at a time when the BBC’s actions would seem to undermine them.
Mr Vaizey
As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out in her speech, it is not just the BBC that is a public service broadcaster, but ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five. If she will allow me to go slightly off-piste, it is important to say that the Government have a communications review under way, and we hope to publish a Green Paper early next year. In it, we will discuss the future of public service broadcasting, but it is certainly our intention, in principle, to maintain the public service broadcasting principles. It is interesting—I say no more that, and I hope Members will not read anything more into my words—to have a debate about the future of public service broadcasting in a digital age, when we have multiple digital channels and the internet. Our initial thinking is certainly that public service broadcasting remains an extraordinarily important cornerstone of UK content throughout the country, and we intend to reinforce the purposes of public service broadcasting in the Green Paper.
Most of the hon. Lady’s remarks focused on the BBC and the cuts it is making as a result of the licence fee settlement. Obviously, I will put the positive case for what the BBC is doing. In the recent debate on local radio, which was well attended, with more than 50 colleagues present, I was intrigued to find myself being assailed by Labour Members for being a defender of the BBC, which is perhaps an unusual position for a Conservative Minister to be in. However, I will bow to no one in my defence of the BBC; it is the cornerstone of public service broadcasting in this country, and we are lucky to have it. It does a superb job. In fact, its commercial rivals—I am talking about not only Sky, but ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five and, indeed, some of the newspapers—express concerns to the effect that the BBC does its job almost too well, making it harder for them to make a living.
The BBC therefore does a fantastic job, but everyone is having to make savings, and when families up and down the country are trying to manage their budgets, this is not the right time substantially to increase the BBC licence fee. What the BBC does have, which no other media company in this country really has—indeed, very few media companies around the world have this—is certainty over its funding until March 2017. That is an important asset for the BBC, and it means that it can plan ahead. Let us not forget that the BBC also receives additional income because of the success of BBC Worldwide.
The BBC is therefore well funded, but it is having to make savings. As we know from the debate about local radio, which focused on the proposals in “Delivering Quality First”, the BBC is looking to make savings of about 10% in local radio, if we take into account the cuts and the fact that the BBC wants to put more money back into programming. In that debate, I defended the BBC’s approach in “Delivering Quality First”, because I felt—and I still feel—that it has taken a strategic approach, and some of the changes that it proposes for local radio are based more on quality than cost cutting.
I must tell the hon. Lady and her colleagues, however, that that debate had a significant impact. I am not privy to the BBC’s thinking or to any changes that it might be thinking of making, but I assure them that I think the BBC has listened to the concerns that were raised. I do not know what changes, if any, it plans to make, but it is certainly legitimate for hon. Members to raise such concerns, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady attended the meeting with Mark Thompson and Lord Patten, when they came to the House to discuss these issues.
On the specific changes in the north-east, my understanding is that there are no plans to stop providing an “Inside Out” edition for the north-east. There will be savings in that programme strand, because this is a regional programme that goes out across the country in different regional variations. That means that there will be a smaller team, and more items in specific programmes might be shared.
On local radio, my understanding is that Newcastle and Tees will have to share a programme on weekday afternoons. The hon. Lady also mentioned the weather report, and I agree that it is an important part of public service broadcasting. There will still be a specific evening weather report, but it is true that the BBC is planning to pre-record the weather report for the early-morning and lunchtime broadcasts on local radio and regional television.
The BBC has had to make some tough decisions, but it has done so in a way that shows that it wants to provide the best possible service for every region in the country. I think the BBC takes its regional responsibilities very seriously, and I certainly know from my conversations with the director-general over the years that he absolutely feels in his bones the need for the BBC to be a service for every licence payer, wherever they live in the United Kingdom, and he would be wary of any proposals that undermined that.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Government’s proposals for local television, and she raises a good point. She mentioned concerns that local television might not be up and running until after 2015. We hope to have the first 20 stations launched in 2012, but if I am wrong about that, I will write to her to correct myself. I also understand—again, if I am wrong, I will write to her to correct myself—that Newcastle and Middlesbrough are among the locations that were consulted over the summer about the local TV framework and potential locations. An announcement will be made just before Christmas on where Ofcom intends to advertise local television licences.
Local television is potentially a revolution in public service broadcasting. It is there to complement the existing public service broadcasting framework, not to replace it. It is there to fill the gap that the Secretary of State felt very keenly, and which he worked on in opposition. Funnily enough, too many regional programmes, which many hon. Members have rightly defended in recent months, are still not local enough, and the Government think audiences would welcome ultra-local television.
On the other investment going into the north-east, the BBC has an impact fund, which is designed specifically to fund programmes in the regions, and it has funded 13 programmes in the north-east over the past two years.
The hon. Lady mentioned changes in the regional development agencies and in Northern Film and Media. I am delighted that Creative England has now been launched under the exemplary leadership of Caroline Norbury, and it has now received £5 million from the regional growth fund. It will maintain a presence in all the regions, and it will work with Northern Film and Media to ensure that investment opportunities exist for local independent production companies, video games companies and all the other high-tech companies that are so successful in the north-east.
One issue we have not covered, and which I often mention—this was an achievement of the previous Government, and I am happy to credit them with it—is the explosion in community radio, which was brought about by the Communications Act 2003. There are now more than 200 local community radio stations across the country, and I am sure many are also thriving in the north-east.
We still have regional quotas for all the public service broadcasters. When I talk to independent production companies in the north-east, they are keen to impress on me the importance of those quotas in ensuring that programmes are commissioned around the country.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) is now yawning, and the clock is flashing, showing that the debate is about to end. Those are strong signals that I have made the points I need to make and that it is time for me to sit down and conclude the debate.
Credit Unions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this important debate, Mr Streeter. I know that we are competing against an Opposition day debate in the main Chamber and the appearance of Mr Patrick Vieira, so it is particularly good to see many hon. Members present. The subject matters to Members from all parties in the House. It is good to see at least four parties represented here already, with possibly a fifth quite soon.
I should declare an interest at the outset in that, like many hon. Members present, I am a member of a local credit union—in my case, United Savings and Loans, in Hampshire. I also chair the all-party group on credit unions, whose secretariat is provided by the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd.
The debate is timely, and that timeliness is to do with the making earlier this month of a legislative reform order that will come into effect in January. It is a key milestone enabler for the credit union sector that will boost the ability of credit unions to improve financial inclusion right across the piece. There are other timely aspects, such as the Government’s recent announcement on the modernisation fund and the exciting possibility of linking up credit unions with the post office network. More broadly, the debate is timely also because of the focus that we have these days on debt at all levels—national, corporate and individual—and because of the desire to re-encourage a culture of savings at a time when 4 million households in the country have no savings at all.
Several related debates are taking place within Parliament, such as on capping the cost of credit, debt management companies and credit brokerage. While those are not debates for today, I would not be surprised if hon. Members brought up aspects of them.
Credit unions have a huge growth opportunity in this country. The sector has already seen substantial and rapid growth over the past decade—between 200% and 300%, depending on which measure we choose. The growth fund, which was introduced under the previous Government, was a big part of that growth. There had already been substantial momentum for growth, but the growth fund also enabled credit unions to reach out to a new category of clients and members. Credit unions in Britain now have more than 800,000 adult members and more than 100,000 junior savers.
However, on an international level, membership penetration of the population by credit unions in this country remains small—a low, single-digit percentage, compared with almost a third in the United States and Australia, and almost half in Ireland. Before I am corrected, I should say that when I talk about credit unions in Britain being small, I am referring to Britain, not the United Kingdom, because in Northern Ireland, as in the Republic of Ireland, credit union penetration is massively higher than it is in England, Scotland and Wales. Globally, there are some 53,000 credit unions, with 188 million members across 100 countries. This model is not some newfangled idea or experiment; it has a great international, long-term record.
We are here to talk specifically about credit unions and financial inclusion. It is important to note that when we talk about financial inclusion or exclusion, the subject is not quite as binary as those terms suggest. It is not that someone is either included or excluded, but that there is a scale in between. No one has no access to any financial service whatever. The scale runs from one end—people trading derivatives on personal accounts—to the other, which is people borrowing money from the sort of lender whose idea of a late-payment penalty is a cigarette burn to the forearm. The question is not whether someone is absolutely included or excluded, but what sort of financial services they can access and at what cost.
A great deal of progress has been made on the entry level of financial inclusion, which is having a transactional bank account. In 2002-03, 10% of households did not have a bank account, and the latest figures suggest 4%. That, however, is still one household in 25, or 1.5 million adults in 1 million homes. Disproportionately, such households are single households, households with single parents and pensioner households, and they tend to be at the bottom of the income scale.
Not having a bank account matters on a practical level. Figures suggest that people could save between £125 and £215 just on utilities in the first year, because they could use direct debit. Interestingly and importantly, such savings can be wiped out by bank charges, particularly behavioural charges for people who are more used to dealing on a cash-only basis.
Broader than the question whether someone has a bank account is how much they pay. Risk will always be priced into credit. Different people will always pay different prices. However, it remains the case that some people pay massively more than others. In credit and other sectors, there is still a significant problem in that the poorest pay the most.
The Centre for Responsible Credit recently produced a good analysis and report, showing how much more the poorest pay for their credit than we—people with access to mainstream credit—do. It found that for every £100 borrowed for infrequent purchases, such as white goods, the cost of credit for people with access only to high-cost credit was on average 2.5 times as much as for people who accessed mainstream financial services. For annually recurring items, such as Christmas presents and back-to-school purchases, that figure rose to 10 times: the cost was £7.80 per £100 borrowed on a Barclaycard, and £71.90 if someone borrowed from home credit providers.
We are not talking about small numbers of people, even though sub-prime and high-cost credit is not an issue that many opinion formers and journalists are particularly aware of because they do not see some of the issues. The leader in the home credit market has 11,000 agents calling weekly on one home in 20 in the UK to collect repayments. Payday loan companies have between 1 million and 2 million customers per annum, and the segment is growing quickly. The leader in the rent-to-own market has 245 stores nationwide, with an ambition to more than double that. With rent-to-own in particular, the question is not only the advertised annual percentage interest rate, which is high enough, but the hidden costs that go with that, especially on the mark-up of goods and the additional cost of service cover.
Across personal credit, particularly to the most disadvantaged, although we could argue that this extends far beyond them, much of the emphasis is not on what they can afford to repay, but on what they want. Combining that with extensions and roll-overs, too many of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in society find themselves in a seemingly never-ending trap of debt, from which it is difficult to break out.
How do credit unions address financial inclusion? On transactional bank accounts, credit unions offer current accounts, and I have such a card with me. There are 33,000 active accounts through 25 different credit unions. Credit unions also offer affordable credit. Interest on loans from credit unions is capped at 26.8% APR, which is a small fraction of what someone might pay to high-cost and sub-prime lenders. Importantly, credit unions must have a balance between savings and loans, so they encourage savings. They are personal, community focused and responsible, and perhaps most importantly, they have an ethos about helping people. They are run by and for their members and are truly co-operative, without a profit motive.
One of the most important development and growth areas for the credit union sector recently has been forging partnerships to reach out to people at risk of financial exclusion. That can be groups of people who would identifiably be at risk of exclusion and a broader group who would, at certain times, be at risk of exclusion. To help such groups, many credit unions work actively with local community organisations, ethnic associations and so on. Some excellent work is being done in prisons to help offenders to prepare for release, rehabilitation and work. Leeds City credit union, for example, is undertaking a number of such projects. Care leavers are an important segment. There is a new financial savings product for children in care, and I hope that credit unions will take the opportunity to work actively in that area.
There is also a broader group of people who, at different times in their life, will face the trigger points at which the risk of financial exclusion becomes that much greater. For example, those trigger points can come when a person is setting up their first home or moving into a flat for the first time. The temptation of going down the high street and seeing the furniture and the flat screen telly in the window of the BrightHouse store is a real danger point, because if someone gets into the trap then, it may take them years and years, or perhaps longer, to get out of it.
There are also those who, perhaps through a change in circumstance—a change in job or the breakdown of a relationship—suddenly find themselves in rent arrears, and the problem can build up and snowball. Organisations such as the London Mutual credit union do a lot of great work with housing associations on exactly that area. By coincidence, right now, in the room next to this Chamber, the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions is holding a fair that showcases some of those partnerships, including London Mutual’s work with the Family Mosaic housing association.
Other types of partnership that credit unions engage in do something slightly different. Rather than just targeting people at risk of exclusion, they seek to grow to build up their self-sustainability and reach out to more people. An important way in which that can be done is with housing associations. Such a partnership is a great way to reach people—it is absolutely in the interests of the housing association that new tenants do not fall into rent arrears. They need tenants to become better at managing their finances and, ideally, to build up savings. Credit unions including my own, United Savings and Loans, do very good work in that area.
Payroll deduction schemes are another interesting and exciting development. They drive savings accounts, either through employer-based credit unions—credit unions can be community, employer or association based—or in partnerships. For example, we could see a community-based credit union partnering with local companies.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend hugely on securing today’s debate and on his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions. He mentioned the importance of the legislative reform order that is due to come in, and also alluded to the important role that housing associations can play in the spread of credit union membership, which we both agree is incredibly important. Does he not agree that there is a real opportunity for the National Housing Federation and the Local Government Association to go out there and encourage all their members to join their local credit union so that almost immediately the number of people across the country with access to loans and a place to deposit their money would increase sharply overnight?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a great opportunity to expand the work between credit unions and housing associations. I hope that the number of those partnerships will increase greatly.
Some credit unions have been involved in payroll deduction savings accounts for many years. I had the privilege of visiting the Voyager Alliance credit union in Manchester. Based at the Stagecoach bus depot in Moss Side, the credit union runs a slick operation. When bus drivers and transport workers join the organisation, they frequently open a savings account from day one. Very small amounts go into the account from their wages. It is a bit like pay-as-you-earn in that they almost do not notice the deduction—well, they do notice it, but hon. Members know what I mean. Before they know it, a small nest egg has been built up, which is important for their financial stability.
The Police credit union does great work with a number of different forces. The Glasgow credit union, which is one of the most successful in the country, has 71 partnerships with different organisations to facilitate building up exactly this kind of savings account. The book on the power of nudge is required reading for all political anoraks these days, and we have talked about that mostly in the context of auto-enrolment pensions, but there is great potential for savings products as well.
Those are some of the things that credit unions themselves are doing, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned, deregulation of the sector and Government support are about to unleash a set of new and exciting opportunities.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this debate and on his wider work in this area. My intervention gives me the opportunity to praise Blackbird Leys credit union and Oxford credit union in my own area. Does he not agree that there is scope to do more through the Post Office to reach out more widely to communities across the country?
Damian Hinds
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is the single most exciting potential opportunity for the sector, and I will come to it shortly.
The key piece of deregulation, and what makes this debate particularly timely, is the passing of what in the credit union movement is known as the LRO. Politicos, however, prefer the longer title of Legislative Reform (Industrial and Providence Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2011, which is an awfully long phrase to get one’s head around. It is very important to the sector and has been an awful long time in the making. When speaking to credit union groups, we always get a groan when we say, “Soon, the LRO will be with us.” I am pleased to say that the order has now been passed and will be with us in the new year.
There are three critical elements to the LRO. First, there is the liberalisation of the common bond requirements. Traditionally, there has to be something in common between the members of a credit union. Although that has some advantages, it is also restrictive of growth. In future, credit unions will be able to open up membership to residents of a local housing association, which may have tenants outside the common bond area, or to employers who may have different branches and operations elsewhere. It will also help to facilitate the growth of the strongest credit unions, thus helping to serve more people.
The second key element is the capacity to pay interest on savings rather than the traditional dividend. The divvy, as it is known, has many advantages. However, it is rather difficult to explain, especially if someone is trying to persuade people to put their savings into a particular product. They may say, “Well, it depends how much money is left at the end of the year and then we will divide it all up and you will get whatever you get.” When a credit union is trying to compete in the market against individual savings accounts, it needs to be able to demonstrate a competitive rate. In future, it will be possible for credit unions to do that.
The third important change is in the type of members. It will be possible for credit unions to engage with not only individuals but organisations for a portion of their business. I do not think that we will see many large plcs suddenly starting to bank with their credit union, but it will work for local community groups, not-for-profit groups, small traders and so on that keep relatively small, but not totally insubstantial, positive balances in their account.
On a wider basis, we could say that credit unions have the potential to be the banker to the big society. Importantly, these changes are enabling; they are not compulsory. Three-quarters of credit unions intend to extend their membership base as a result of the changes.
What are the critical success factors for credit unions to be able to promote financial inclusion? We have to look at that on two levels: individual credit union and system-wide. For an individual credit union, scale is needed. It then needs a proportionate cost base so that it can run a surplus. It needs a good mix of savers and borrowers and income groups. To be successful, credit unions cannot just be for the most disadvantaged; they need a good mix. MPs and our local media can play an important part by encouraging more people to put a proportion of their savings—it does not have to be all—into credit unions in the knowledge that they are totally safe and that they will be doing some good in the local community.
On the system-wide level, scale is again at the top of the list of success factors. Alongside that are awareness, visibility and accessibility. Credit unions suffer on that count at the moment. Not as many people are aware of credit unions as they are of the sort of organisations that can afford to advertise constantly on daytime television. Credit unions need attractive, competitive products and substantial, robust back-office processes and interfaces.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My hon. Friend is drawing our attention to a number of issues; one of which I am aware is that the Isle of Wight credit union died earlier this year and was helped to amalgamate with the Hampshire credit union. We were greatly helped by the Financial Services Authority, and of course the local people were helped too, but it is important that people should feel some local connection. We do not need huge credit unions that go all over the country.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend makes a fine point. There will be variety. One of the things that sets credit unions apart is having something about them other than just being a financial institution, and that aspect will absolutely continue. However, these deregulatory changes will also enable stronger credit unions to grow and reach out to more people.
The other thing that can facilitate great change, improvement and growth in the sector is the modernisation fund of up to £73 million, which the Government are making available to help credit unions that can expand to reach self-sustainability in four to five years. I know that Ministers are considering a feasibility study on this issue, and whether and how best to use that money. There are some ways that Government capital can make a big difference. First, it can help the sector to develop a common banking platform and business processing. The sector has already demonstrated its potential for doing that with the credit union card account and the credit union prepaid card.
Secondly, as has been alluded to already, there is the possibility of linking credit unions with the Post Office, marrying a huge, trusted, visible and, for most people, accessible network with financial services from credit unions, which currently suffer from not having that presence. Thirdly, there is the development of the brilliantly named Jam Jar budget account, which is all about helping people to mimic the way that our mums and dads’ generation organised their finances. They had a jar for the rent, a jar for this outgoing, a jar for that outgoing and then they knew what they had left. It is a lot harder to know that these days. I mentioned some of the bank charges that people can incur, particularly in the first year they have a transactional bank account and move away from operating on a cash-only basis. Of course, that is of particular interest at the moment, not least because of the Government’s ambitious welfare reform programme.
There is another idea that I want to throw into the debate. It is not something that the sector is calling for, but I want to see new and innovative ways for people right across the country who may not have an immediate association with a credit union to put part of their investment portfolio through something like a social ISA, to hook them up with opportunities with credit unions and perhaps also with community development finance institutions or other social enterprises, social impact projects and so on.
We want growth in the sector and we want more financial inclusion, but we have to note and accept that particular costs are associated with inclusive growth. I am not a banker—thankfully—but to oversimplify things hugely I suggest that there are three key cost drivers to extending credit: the first is the riskiness of the customer base; the second is the term, or length, of the loan; and the third is the cost of collecting repayments. On those criteria, operating in the sub-prime segment of the market and reaching out to riskier types of customer, particularly with small loans and shorter-term loans, carries an additional cost.
Credit unions are known as an affordable option; that is what makes them so attractive. Their 26.8% APR limit is absolutely key, but the thing that we perhaps do not speak about often enough is that the limit has limits and it restricts what credit unions can do. With the growth fund, credit unions were able to reach out to a more excluded segment of the market. For the people that process helped, the savings have been quite substantial; there have been total savings in interest of more than £100 million and there has been a big drop-off in that group in the use of high-cost credit. However, for the credit unions themselves it is a costlier segment of the market, which is part of the reason why we have seen an erosion of the growth fund over time. Of course, with the growth of payday loans in particular it is especially difficult—actually, it is mathematically impossible—for credit unions to compete with organisations that are able to charge an APR in the thousands per cent, when credit unions themselves are capped at an APR of something less than 30%.
Some of the increased costs may be mitigated by technology. Of course, part of the point of the social fund is that if there is direct benefit deduction it greatly reduces the cost of collection and the cost of default. Jam Jar budget accounts are another development that would help in that respect, as would different channel developments. Those developments may mitigate the increased costs, but they are not the whole answer.
The sector is not calling for a lifting of the 26.8% APR limit, but I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members have heard from individual credit unions, as I have, that they would like a liberalisation of the limit. There are big perception issues around that question but we must keep the debate active, because even if the limit on credit unions was somewhat higher than it is today there would still be a huge gap between the APR of credit unions and the 272% that someone might pay a home credit provider, or the thousands of per cent to a payday lender.
In recent months, a wider debate about APR caps and restrictions overall has had quite a lot of currency in this place, although as I said earlier, that is not a debate for today. Suffice to say, however, that everything I know about economics tells me that a blunt general cap on APR would be a terrible idea for multiple reasons, with all sorts of unintended consequences. I know that the Government are actively engaging in debate and analysis of the issue, so perhaps it is possible to have a different sort of regime—a different structure to the restrictions—which would get rid of the worst excesses of the market without denying people access to credit altogether. Personally, I have been kicking around the idea of a double-restriction scheme, whereby there is a limit on the initial set-up fee and then a separate limit, or set of limits, on the interest rate charge, which would enable payday loans, home credit and all sorts of things to continue while getting rid of the worst excesses of the market. In that different way of thinking, it might also be possible to create a different sort of regime for credit unions, although I stress again that it is not something that the sector is calling for.
To conclude, credit unions can deliver in Britain on a much bigger scale than they do today; we have only to look to Northern Ireland for a model of what things could look like. Credit unions can also deliver greatly enhanced financial inclusion. Let us not forget the human angle: more stable lives, less pressure on relationships and families and, essentially, happier people. Credit unions can also target and reach at-risk groups, such as those leaving care or ex-offenders.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the Society Credit Union in Londonderry. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this debate. In his very illuminating introduction, he mentioned a couple of times the differing aspects of credit unions. That applies particularly to Northern Ireland, where credit unions are flourishing and have done so for many decades. He has already alluded to flexibility, but does he agree that any changes we contemplate need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for growth in communities where credit unions have been stunted and have not really taken root, while allowing credit unions in areas where they show significant growth to expand even beyond the reach that they have managed over many decades?
Damian Hinds
I certainly take, accept and agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point. There are very specific issues about the regulatory regime in Northern Ireland, but I am not an expert so I will not attempt to talk about things that I do not know enough about. However, I have a feeling that we may hear more about the Northern Ireland situation later in the debate.
More generally with affordable credit, if people are not overpaying for their loans it means that wages go further, and of course that has a beneficial marginal effect on employment and growth. Benefits go further too, and when taxpayers are paying out sums in benefit they want to know that it is going to support families and children, rather than being swallowed up in sky-high interest rates. Credit unions can also help to deliver a renewed savings culture.
I thank the Government for their support of the sector, their recognition of the role that credit unions can play in increasing and improving financial inclusion, and for their general interest in mutuals, especially in the wake of the banking crisis. I also thank them for seeing the legislative reform order through, for their boldness and ambition with the modernisation fund of up to £73 million, and their willingness to look at radical options, such as the Post Office link-up.
Inevitably, however, I also have some asks. First, I ask the Government to please provide a proportionate regulatory framework for credit unions in the post-FSA world. Credit unions should not be penalised for a crisis in which they played no part, and for which they share none of the blame. Secondly, it would be good to get further details of the modernisation fund, and to get the key projects under way as soon as possible. Thirdly, we ask the Government to understand the pressures, challenges and costs associated with reaching the hard-to-reach and, finally, to continue to work as partners with all levels of government to address financial inclusion, rip-off loans and the erosion of the savings culture, to help responsive and responsible financial services, and to further the cause of social justice that brought us all into politics.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The speech by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was illuminating and informative, and his passion for credit unions came through. As treasurer of the all-party group on credit unions, I pay tribute to him for his work in raising awareness across all parties in the House of the good work that credit unions do. I declare an interest as a Co-op MP, and also as a member of Islwyn Community Credit Union, which, I am pleased to report, has this year lent £1 million to its members in Islwyn. That just goes to prove that, once again, for many people it is credit unions that are coming to the rescue for their financial needs.
There has been an explosion in credit unions in the past 10 years. In 2000, they accounted for £183 million of savings and that figure is now £475 million, and they lent £175 million in 2000 compared with £429 million now. That goes to prove the vital role the credit unions play in financial inclusion. To me, coming from the south Wales valleys—I will not use any of the colloquialisms or anecdotes I usually do—financial inclusion is the No. 1 issue.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned that credit unions often cannot compete with companies that offer massive amounts of interest because they do not have a budget for television advertising during “The Jeremy Kyle Show”, “This Morning” or “Loose Women”, for example. The other problem, which exists in the south Wales valleys as well, is a cultural one. People borrowing from doorstep lenders are used to the woman coming around at 6 o’clock on a Monday night and collecting.
With financial inclusion, we are looking at three issues. First, we must do something about the culture of door-to-door money lending. It is not just the illegal loan shark that we are all concerned about, but Provident, Shopacheck and obscure companies that we have never heard of. This might be outside the remit of the Department for Work and Pensions, but we need to start with financial literacy and do more to encourage credit unions in schools. When I was a kid, we had national savings, and we would save £1 a week. We learnt about the value of money and of saving, and we took the cash out at Christmas to spend on what we wanted. I pay tribute to Islwyn Community Credit Union, which has a scheme in Trinant primary school with more than 45 members. The scheme is a good advertisement, because the children are joining and then the parents are coming along and joining as well—there is a collection point there. The question we must ask is: how do we promote credit unions? When we talk about credit unions, people even in this place do not seem to know what they do, so we have to do more about advertising.
Secondly, and again outside the DWP’s remit, there is the issue of banking. I am a former Lloyds TSB banker, and when the fine Government initiative of the basic bank account was introduced, people working in the banking industry were not interested in it, because it never credit scored for products such as credit cards, loans, or even, to some extent, savings accounts. A lot of work has been done with that account, but I am still concerned that many people in my surgeries tell me about going to loan sharks and companies that offer exorbitant amounts. I ask them, “Why are you borrowing so much money off them when they are clearly ripping you off?” The problem is that they cannot access finance, even simple things such as overdrafts, which anyone might need. They are therefore driven into the hands of these lenders. I recently said to the British Bankers Association: “The way I view it is that there is a massive business opportunity there for you,” and they replied, “The set-up costs would be so high it wouldn’t be worth our while offering £500 or whatever.” So we need to talk about the role that banks can play. Would there be a facility for banks to finance credit unions and to expand that in some way?
The third issue is that we often talk about financial inclusion as being an individual option, as something that seems to happen to an individual or a family, but there are a number of small businesses that cannot access any form of lending. They might be social enterprises and there might be no money in there. I would like to hear more from the Minister about the plans for community development finance initiatives, which lend to small businesses and social enterprises. How can we expand that and make businesses aware of the facility? I did not know what they were until I did some research, so how can a business know about them? We can look at increasing that awareness.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire said that we have an option here. We can support credit unions and make people aware of them. A great thing about living in Wales—I am from there, as is the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who is no longer in his place, and it is a great place—is that everyone has access to a credit union. We can look at the examples there and roll the idea out across the country. It does not really cost anything. If we do not do something now, particularly in these hard financial times when even people with regular jobs find themselves squeezed out, the only option will be to go to the high-lending companies. I agree in many respects with not fixing credit APR, because if we fix it all the other costs will be pushed down on to the consumer. There is an argument for capping the costs of lending, and we can look at things such as not having early repayment penalties and making loans more simplistic.
Another problem that credit unions suffer is one of image. People seem to think that they are only for the most impoverished, those who are cut off, but Islwyn Community Credit Union says that the vast majority of its members have jobs. The key is promoting credit unions to such people as a way of saving and borrowing, and promoting the idea that they are not just for people on benefits.
I have another moan—I am sorry if I am moaning a bit too much. This is an idea not for the DWP to respond to today but I hope that it will be taken back to the Ministry of Justice. When I worked in the bank, I had excellent customers who were paying their mortgage and loans, and I got a lot of business out of them. Then, all of a sudden, a county court judgment would appear on their file, and that would destroy the possibility of their having any facilities whatsoever. When I asked them what the CCJ was, very often they did not know because they thought that they had not defaulted or anything. On investigation, they found out that they were in dispute with Vodafone or Orange or over gym membership, for example, and that a CCJ had been put on them, but they knew nothing about it. It seems mad that somebody’s credit record should be completely destroyed simply because of a dispute with a mobile phone company.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and he is making an important point, but could I clarify something? I am a bit puzzled as to how someone in that position could reach the point of getting a CCJ against them without having received any notification. If that is happening, it is clearly a big concern.
Chris Evans
What I have found is that a lot of people have got into arguments with a mobile phone company, for example, because they want to end their contract. They say that they have paid 12 months, but the company says that they have paid only 11 months and that they need to make one more payment—it might be for a silly amount of, say, £30. The two sides have been arguing, but they have reached gridlock, and no money has been paid, so the phone company has threatened to take the person to court. Gym membership is another issue I have come across. People want to end their membership early, but they then get into a dispute with the gym. In many respects, it seems lop-sided that the company has sought a CCJ.
If a consumer is in dispute with a company over a payment, there should be some way of ensuring that the company cannot put a CCJ on them until the issue is resolved; I am talking about tidying up that part of the law. This is very important, but it is not talked about often, so it might be something to look at. These people can be good bank customers, but what can the bank do? It can go only on their credit record. I am not knocking the banks for that. I am asking why companies that should have no effect on people’s credit rating are able to write people off in that way.
I have spoken for longer than I expected, but I believe passionately in credit unions and in expanding them as much as possible. I believe in relaxing the common bond, but I also think it is possible to have a central finance facility—these facilities are used all over the world—that credit unions could access. The Co-op party has told me that such an arrangement would cost about £10 million to £15 million, so it is not a lot. It would increase credit union membership from 750,000 at present to 2 million in five years. It would deliver 100,000 new growth fund loans over five years. It is worth looking at that, and I hope the Minister will give us more information when he responds.
Let me end by thanking every member of the all-party group for showing an interest in this issue. In the economic times in which we find ourselves, financial inclusion really is the most important subject, and I thank everybody for turning up for the debate.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for introducing the debate and for his active championing of the credit union sector, of which everybody in the Chamber is a keen supporter. We are all grateful for the good work he does, and we support him.
I am a huge supporter of credit unions. Before I entered this place, I was employed as a consumer advocate in the financial services industry. The burden of debt and the misery that increased indebtedness causes are probably among the biggest consumer issues of our time. The credit union sector plays a key role in tackling the worst excesses and, perhaps more to the point, in preventing people from becoming overburdened by indebtedness.
It is fair to say that one of the biggest causes of indebtedness is excessive charges on unauthorised overdrafts and excessive credit card debt. That is fine if people can access mainstream credit providers. This is where we get into the real contribution that credit unions can make. Once some people take on the burden of debt, the only thing for them to do is to go to less mainstream providers, which charge ever more punitive rates of interest and, at their worst, involve levels of criminality. We all recognise the role credit unions can play in expanding the amount of affordable credit that can be accessed by people who need to borrow.
My constituency is served by a credit union called Essex Savers, and I want to highlight the partnership it has with the local authority, which has enabled quite a significant expansion of services. Essex Savers came to Thurrock only one year ago, but it now has four branches operating across the borough. It is an interesting example, because the local authority’s support does not involve providing cash; it involves making the facilities the authority runs services from available to the credit union and making the staff who deliver those services available for a couple of hours a week to take deposits. That is really harnessing the voluntary aspects of the credit union and enabling a good partnership with the organisations of government. When they come together, they can be most effective. These days, when credit unions are looking for support, local authorities’ immediate response is to say, “We’re sorry, but money’s tight. We can’t help you.” With a bit of imagination, however, Thurrock council has shown that it can give credit unions meaningful support. The growth in the number of accounts and loans that Essex Savers has delivered in Thurrock through its four branches in one year is nothing short of inspiring.
That arrangement makes perfect sense from a public policy perspective. As we know, debt is a contributory cause of family breakdown, house repossessions and bankruptcy, all of which lead to additional burdens on the taxpayer, and the problem is nowhere more acute than in housing. I would therefore encourage all local authorities to look at the example of Thurrock to see whether they can learn lessons about how to engage in meaningful partnerships with credit unions to tackle some of the negative consequences of debt.
We should recognise that this is the time of year when debt issues are at their most acute, because Christmas is approaching. I want to highlight the reality for many of my constituents. In the main, they are ordinary, hard-working people; we are not characterised by high levels of affluence. Let me take Members for a little walk down the high street in Grays. Midway down, we come across The Money Shop, which offers services such as pawnbroking or gold to cash. It also offers a payday loan at £9.99 per £100, which sounds reasonable, and it can be if people can pay it back within a month; if they cannot, they have no choice but to take out a fresh loan. Some customers find themselves taking out a fresh loan every month and end up paying APRs of as much as 260%.
I give that example because we are in November and in the run-up to Christmas, and people will be tempted to overextend themselves. That is particularly likely if they cross Grays high street to BrightHouse. At present, the company is offering a 42-inch Philips LED TV for £16.99 a month for three years. Closer examination shows the cash price is £1,196.36 but that, under the terms of the agreement, the customer will actually pay £2,650.44.
Such businesses have arrived in Grays only in the past three years, but they are thriving because people with poor credit histories just cannot access loans from banks any more and have no choice but to enter into such punitive arrangements, seduced as they are by weekly payments that sound affordable on the face of it.
That is why credit unions are so important, and access to affordable credit will help to tackle some of these issues. Credit unions are staffed by volunteers and owned by their members, and their customers access credit on terms that ensure they will not be exploited. We all need to do our bit to raise awareness of the facilities that credit unions can supply.
I congratulate the Government on the new order, which liberates credit unions from some of the legal constraints under which they operated. It is fair to say that the legal regime has been a barrier to enabling some credit unions to achieve financial sustainability. It is really positive that they will be able to get deposits from businesses and partnerships from now on. Ultimately, credit unions can lend only what they have in deposits.
I, for one, will be engaging in a campaign to encourage more people in my constituency to open savings accounts with the credit union there. As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, one of the biggest stigmas that credit unions face is the idea that they are only for poor people. The message I want to send out is that those of us who want, and are able, to save can make deposits with credit unions, in the full knowledge that we are not only building a nest egg, but making money available for a good social purpose.
Finally, having congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what else the Government can do to support this important sector. The legislative reform order is obviously a move in the right direction. Credit unions will be able to take advantage of the freedoms, to grow. However, the real challenge is for those that are growing to achieve sustainability, particularly when there are increased costs of complying with the FSA, audit requirements and so on. One of the keys to building sustainability in the sector is thinking about how we can engage credit unions to deliver some Government services, and make use of that facility to engage with the people who are hardest to reach.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I commend the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for obtaining the debate and for his good and active work as chairman of the all-party group on credit unions. I am conscious that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is from the Department for Work and Pensions because that Department has been closely involved—recently, in particular—in the long awaited LRO, which is so welcomed by credit unions in this country. However, without detracting from the positive points that have been made about the development and potential of credit unions in Great Britain, I want to highlight some points about credit unions in Northern Ireland. I am aware that there are in the Chamber not only officials from the DWP, but some with a relevant interest from the Treasury.
The LRO has long been sought by the credit union movement in Great Britain. It is great to see that advance, some of whose benefits were highlighted by the hon. Member for East Hampshire. Of course, that development, of itself, will not extend to credit unions in Northern Ireland, as he mentioned, so we have a little source of frustration. The Northern Ireland credit unions have spent many years campaigning to be able to offer as many services as their counterparts in Great Britain—their much smaller counterparts, both as to member numbers and savings. At a time when it looks as if that will now happen—at least the primary measure to permit it is coming with the draft Financial Services Bill—one frustration makes Northern Ireland credit unions a wee bit jealous: the LRO will further enhance what their counterparts in Great Britain can do compared with what they can do. Also, of course, there are issues to do with some of the details of the regulation that might come from the Financial Conduct Authority, courtesy of the Treasury’s plans in relation to the draft Bill and associated developments. Issues of context and content arise in relation to the change.
As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members acknowledged, the credit union movement in Ireland at large is very strong. It has a long history, well rooted in communities. It is also particularly strong in Northern Ireland. The roots of my predecessor, John Hume, were in the credit union movement: not only did he help to found the movement in my constituency, but he led it in Ireland in the 1960s. In Northern Ireland, we have 163 credit unions, 103 of which are affiliated to the Irish League of Credit Unions. Those tend to be more mature; they have been longer in existence. Some 60 credit unions are associated with the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions. The Irish league has 370,000 members and there are 148,000 borrowing members with total savings of more than £700 million and total loans of more than £430 million, so, given the size of the Northern Ireland population, we are talking about something quite significant.
That is the situation while the credit unions are able to offer their members limited services—essentially just deposits and loans. The beauty of the measures that we hope will proceed—courtesy of the draft Bill and the consultations undertaken by the devolved Department and the Treasury in the past while, in response to the report to the Northern Ireland Assembly of an inquiry that I chaired—is the creation of at least the regulatory openings to allow credit unions in Northern Ireland to offer increased services. That is because some historic anomalies and legislative warps have limited what credit unions in Northern Ireland can do. They are not regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Therefore, they cannot offer services that are, by their nature, regulated by the FSA here.
It looks as if we may be coming to a path forward in that respect, but the credit union movement—both the Ulster federation and the Irish league—have concerns about the context and the detail of what is happening. The recent consultation was shortened to two months instead of three. People are worried that it has been rushed, and that although the changes that could be made afterwards have long been awaited, they may take place relatively quickly, before credit unions have been able to prepare themselves properly, internally and externally, for their impact, and for all the requirements. There is no point imposing change that will add to difficulties and make life hard for busy and effective credit unions.
The federation and the Irish league are also concerned about the content of some of the changes. Some of the proposed changes would take credit unions in Northern Ireland backwards in relation to existing functions. One is the planned reduction in the maximum deposit limit. Credit unions in Northern Ireland have a maximum deposit limit of £15,000. It was raised to that amount in 2006, because it needed to be. The proposal is that under the new arrangements it will be scaled back to £10,000. That will affect 48 credit unions in Northern Ireland, in which there are already people over that savings limit. That is entirely consistent with the culture of credit unions, which is about encouraging thrift through growing savings. To ask credit unions to tell some of their savers that they must take money away seems perverse.
The credit unions that belong to the Irish League of Credit Unions also offer, essentially, a free life-savings insurance service to their members. Whatever the value of a member’s savings on death, a multiple of that will go to their next of kin. Therefore, imposing the new limit will mean a significant change in the benefit that credit unions can offer their members.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the issues affecting credit unions in Northern Ireland, and I agree with him. I have received representations on the issue of borrowing, as have several hon. Members, and it is clear that members’ borrowing ability will be adversely affected, with the effects that he suggests. In the case of Northern Ireland, which has such a mature credit union movement, would it not be a good idea for the FSA and the Government to consider the best examples of what has happened there and perhaps import those, rather than imposing what is suggested for Great Britain on Northern Ireland?
Mark Durkan
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Any changes proposed now should be about allowing and encouraging credit unions in Northern Ireland to go forward, not taking some of them backwards, and expanding their platform, rather than restricting the space in what they offer their members. He has made the point that the deposit restriction has a consequential effect, in some ways, on borrowing. Another issue, although I shall not go into it here as time does not permit, is the limit being imposed on unsecured loans. Given that there is such a high rate of saving and very healthy savings levels in credit unions in Northern Ireland, that restriction also seems perverse in its consequences.
There is also a proposal to limit the investment maturity period for any surplus sums that credit unions invest. Many credit unions in Northern Ireland are investing them very prudently, sometimes on three, four or five-year terms. The changes proposed by the Government would limit them to one-year deals. In the circumstances, the logic of Government policy should be about encouraging long-termism, prudence and sound investment in savings, so it seems perverse that credit unions in Northern Ireland are being told that they will no longer be allowed to follow the good and effective practice in which they have been engaging for years, and that they will have to move to a more varied and less reliable pattern of dealing with investments.
There are also issues with the transition to the new arrangements. Traditionally, credit unions in Northern Ireland have been registered with and regulated by the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, albeit for a limited number of services. Credit unions belonging to the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions have enjoyed their relationship with DETI. They have confidence in its officials, who have important insight and rapport.
During any change or transition to the Financial Conduct Authority, given that it will involve new things, as will the new regulation for credit unions in Northern Ireland, it will be important to have a strong support programme in place. The devolved Administration should support that, but I also hope that the Treasury and DWP will be sympathetic, because the kinds of measure that we want during the transition and development period are akin to the sorts of support that the Department has been happy to give to members of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd and credit unions in this country.
I wanted to take advantage of the debate, secured by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, to set out some of the concerns. The story of credit union development in Northern Ireland has been good and strong. We could be on the threshold of something positive, but there is a danger that unnecessary detail will detract from that potential.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As always, Mr Streeter, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate.
The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about financial literacy. He might be interested to learn that a young lady doing work experience with me this week is watching the debate from the Gallery. She told me before we came to Westminster Hall that, as part of her enrichment class, she has just studied the role of credit unions. I have no idea what an enrichment class is, but the fact that it is studying credit unions is a fantastic way to ensure that youngsters learn about a variety of sources—
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Does she agree that it is important that credit unions can operate from an early stage in schools and involve young people much more directly than by simply learning about them?
Tracey Crouch
I agree. As many providers as exist should be entitled to teach children about the variety of sources of financial awareness. I have been to primary schools in my constituency and seen big banks supporting financial education programmes, which I think is fantastic, but we should get as many people in there as possible.
I proudly declare, like many Members here, that I am a member of a credit union: Kent Savers, the county-wide credit union. I am also soon to be a member of Medway credit union, which covers part of my constituency. Like others, I am passionate about tackling high-cost credit, lending and financial inclusion, and see credit unions as part of the answer. That stems from my experience of living the high life in London as a young graduate and stupidly running up debts, from which I was saved by my bank manager, and of representing a constituency that has pockets of deprivation and associated personal debt problems.
In the current economic climate, we must pay particularly close attention to how much debt people take on as pressure inevitably increases on household budgets. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to promote accessibility to fair and equitable credit, particularly, although not exclusively, for those on low incomes. That is why I share the enthusiasm for credit unions and believe that we must raise their profile. I am sure that I join many hon. Members here in having done so through local media.
I have met representatives of Kent Savers and Medway credit union, the latter as recently as last Friday, and have learned a great deal more about credit unions’ services, benefits and duties. Northern Irish Members will be interested to know that they spoke favourably of the credit unions in Ireland and Northern Ireland. One director is from Ireland and is helping to bring that experience to Medway.
As a mutual, a credit union has an ethos of responsibility and inclusion—traits especially welcome in Medway, which, sadly, has problems with unmanageable debt. Responsibility and inclusion go hand in hand and are crucial features in running credit unions fairly and equitably. Much is admirable in credit unions’ ability to open up opportunities to take out reasonable loans for people on low incomes or with bad credit history. The alternatives, as I have found in Medway, are far less appealing. As in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), several high-cost credit lenders have set up shops prominently situated on busy high streets. They are the antithesis of credit unions.
Consumers took out £1.9 billion in payday loans last year, which is £500 million more than in the previous year. That trend is a concern and it is broadly reflected in the Medway area. Shockingly, at the local citizens advice bureau recently, a record £3 million in unsecured personal debt walked through the doors in one week. I have since been informed that loans and the interest associated with payday lending account for a worrying proportion of that £3 million. That is a great shame, and I have campaigned against it as a local Member of Parliament.
Such businesses deal in large sums of money and small print. They are identifiable by their glossy shop fronts, but they offer less attractive interest rates, targeting people on low incomes who are in financial difficulty. Sure, if they pay back the loan in time, the rate might be lower over 30 days than a high street bank’s overdraft charge, but the very fact that someone has gone to a payday loan company rather than a bank might indicate that they are a credit risk. No controls are placed on borrowing—a remarkable difference from credit unions.
The emergence of payday loan shops on high streets and the accessibility of easy credit on the internet appear to offer a quick fix. It might be financial inclusion of a sort, but the reality of high-cost credit is very different. It can be irresponsible on the part of the lender and self-defeating for the consumer, placing them deeper into debt and excluding them from accessing the lending market in the future, which credit unions do not do.
On Monday, I was pleased to note the Government’s response to the consumer credit and personal insolvency review. I was particularly encouraged to learn that they will consider the possibility of imposing a variable cap on the cost of high-cost credit that can be charged in the short to medium-term high-cost credit market, while talking up the credentials of credit unions as an alternative.
It is worth making the point that credit unions are more than just a lending service. To take out a loan, members must first commit to saving, which is an equally important feature of managing their finances. Given that only 20% of people in the UK reportedly put aside money each month, more clearly needs to be done to encourage saving. Credit unions offer a great opportunity to help to reverse that trend with a more innovative method of depositing cash, receiving a dividend and earning the possibility of taking out a loan. By committing to saving, members provide a cushion for those unexpected emergencies that we hear so much about from payday loan lenders, while avoiding astronomical interest rates.
I learned last week that Medway credit union is developing a Christmas savings scheme that encourages members to put aside money for Christmas essentials. Christmas is an expensive time of year. Given the pressure on families to spend, the temptation for those on low incomes to buy now and pay later is strong. However, under the scheme, reserves gradually built up over time will be on hand to cover the cost of the festive family season and steer families away from alternative high-cost credit. Most importantly, what makes the Christmas saving scheme attractive is that it is secure.
Credit unions have an important role to play for older people, who are often financially excluded. I have spoken before in this Chamber about my concerns for the financial welfare and education of our pensioners. Financial difficulty is not limited to younger generations seeking loans to cover rent, bills or insuring the family car. I read a worrying report called “Debt and generations” commissioned by the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, and I urge hon. Members to read it. It revealed a minority of older people with extremely high levels of debt and a notable number of older households with high repayment-to-income ratios.
For instance, 12% of over-55s have a repayment-to-income ratio of 30%, compared to only 9% of those aged 18 to 24. Also, a great many older people are less able to mitigate the effect of an unexpected bill or change in circumstance. A reduction of just £50 to their monthly income, for example, doubles the likelihood of the oldest age groups becoming financially vulnerable and, potentially, taking out costly loans to meet the shortfall. I think we all agree that it would be far more preferable for older people faced with those difficulties to approach credit unions instead.
I am conscious of the time, so I will finish by saying that the Government have taken some welcome steps with the legislative reform order and other measures. I think we all welcome those steps and I look forward to reading the Government’s study, to which their formal response on consumer credit alludes, on credit unions and how they will be encouraged to grow and prosper.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate, on his work chairing the all-party group on credit unions, and on his thoughtful and well informed observations at the start of the debate. His constituency and mine have similar names, although they are rather different places. We both, however, have constituents who owe a great deal to their local credit unions. I will touch on that during my remarks.
We have had friendly societies for a long time, since the early 18th century, when the chaos of the period brought the need for the greater security that mutual action was able to provide. The idea of working co-operatively to ensure that people are provided for in times of want and have a secure haven for their money, drawing on the resources of the community, continues to be very important.
The previous Government made a number of widely supported changes to enable the development of new dynamism and opportunity to the credit union and mutual sector. We recognised that the way the law treated credit unions in a number of respects was holding them back. That was the reason why, in 2002, the previous Government brought credit unions under the regulatory aegis of the Financial Services Authority. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) gave a good example in his intervention of that arrangement working very well. The hon. Member for East Hampshire was also right to sound a cautionary note about some of the risks for credit unions in the current re-regulation process.
The previous Government then took steps to enable credit unions to modernise while retaining what has always made them unique, starting with permitting them to communicate electronically in 2007, which was previously not allowed. We also committed to looking at how to reform the legislation on their membership, and that was the background, in 2008, to what became the Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2011, which will modernise the common bond and which has been widely welcomed during the debate. I note, however, the cautionary observations made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the possible effects in Northern Ireland.
It is clearly right that as communities have changed, so the restrictions that the common bond places on credit unions should change, too. Allowing businesses, housing associations and social enterprises to become partners with credit unions reflects the reality of communities today and the opportunities in them.
It was not just the previous Labour Government who introduced changes to the sector. Both the former Member for Bournemouth West, Sir John Butterfill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) tabled private Members’ Bills, which helped the sector by reflecting the extent of consensus and support. Like others, I hope that the Minister will make some favourable observations about the prospects for the imminent implementation of the legislative reform order.
Partly—perhaps largely—as a result of support given to the sector by Government, there has been significant growth in the size and scale of the credit union movement, particularly over the past decade, in terms of numbers and of the amount saved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) rightly pointed out. I pay tribute to the work of the Association of British Credit Unions in supporting the sector and its consistent and effective effort on behalf of credit unions. Recent unaudited data from the association note that credit unions grew by nearly 15% in just the first six months of 2009, which reflects what was happening elsewhere, I guess, in the financial services industry.
In Westminster Hall last week, I set out the case of my constituent who was about to start her university course and was unfairly denied a bank account after she became a victim of fraud when her card was stolen. She was only able to take up her university place because the local credit union, NewCred, of which I too am a member, as are other Members, was willing to offer her an account. Because she had run into problems with her bank account, a reference was made to CIFAS—the credit industry fraud avoidance system—which meant that she could not get an account from any bank at all. NewCred was the only institution able to offer her an account, and had it not been for that she would not have been able to take up her place at university, because she would not have been able to receive her student loan cheque or have an account for it to be paid into.
Like other Members, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm the continuation of his Department’s funding for credit unions. That has been a valuable source of support over recent years; the hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned the figure of £73 million, which has been spoken of in this context. I also hope that the Government will support credit union access through the Post Office, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) drew attention during an intervention.
I echo the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn for the creation of a central finance facility. He has talked about the cost of setting it up, but as he said, such a facility is widely used elsewhere and it is estimated that consumers will have significant savings in credit costs if such an arrangement can be put in place. It might also provide a mechanism to release more than £1 billion in the Post Office card account float, which could be lent to social fund customers, as well as providing, as my hon. Friend said, the potential to significantly increase the size of credit unions. Is the Minister able to say something about that?
One major disappointment is the missed opportunity—many of us felt this—in relation to Northern Rock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North raised the issue of the extension and expansion of the mutual financial sector in his question to the Prime Minister earlier today. We have not really received an explanation of why the option of a member-led remutualisation, which was proposed by the Co-operative party, was not accepted. There are some big questions to be asked about the sale of Northern Rock. When will the Minister and his hon. Friends publish the advice of United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd and Deutsche Bank, so that we can see exactly why a mutual Northern Rock was ruled out? I know that the Treasury said that remutualisation would have meant gifting value currently held by the Exchequer to members of the new mutual, but we have not been told whether the Treasury is gifting £250 million of Northern Rock’s existing equity to Virgin, or what the difference in principle is between those two exchanges. A mutual Northern Rock would have been very attractive.
Members have rightly touched on other aspects of financial inclusion and exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has made great strides in advancing the argument for a cap on interest rates in the UK, and there are pros and cons to that proposal. Before the election, as I recall, the Conservative party pledged that there would be a cap on excessive store card interest rates, to protect the public and help prevent people from falling into problem debt. I was present at an event at the Barbican where the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said that the cap would be the firm policy of the Conservative party, and it subsequently appeared in a policy document. Will the Minister let us know what the plans for that measure now are?
I welcome the strong support expressed for the credit union sector in the debate. The growth of the sector has been greatly helped by Government support in the past decade or more. I, with others, hope that the Minister will be able to confirm today that support will be maintained, and that the sector will have the potential to expand further in the period ahead.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. It has been an extremely informed and useful debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing it, on the extensive work that he has clearly done chairing the all-party group, and on his involvement in the credit union fair today. It is with fortuitous timing that we debate this issue at the same time as the fair, which showcased the valuable work of credit unions. There is a greater focus on both events as a result, but I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their involvement in the fair—a sign of hon. Members not just talking, but acting—and showcasing work by a sector that we all agree plays a very valuable role in our society, particularly in tackling debt, which can be a massive burden on lower income families.
One of the consequences of the credit crunch is that it is now more difficult for families on low income to obtain credit. The consequence can be to trap people in poverty, which makes it more difficult for many people to improve their work situation, as it constrains job search activity and makes financial planning much harder to manage. Of course, it also denies people access to certain types of job; for example, those that include handling cash are not necessarily available to people with poor credit records. It means that people have more demands on their finances, more to lose if something goes wrong, and are therefore perhaps more cautious about changing their financial situation; for example, by leaving the relative security of the benefits system and moving into work, even though we all know that once they are established in work, they are much better off in the long run.
We are dealing with the problem of debt that entrenches people in poverty. We know that those on low incomes are at the greatest risk of ending up in debt and, as a result, are often the least equipped to cope with it. One of the principal causes of debt for those on low incomes is that the majority have few or no savings. When an unexpected financial pressure occurs—an essential household appliance stops working; for example, the fridge breaks down—they have to resort to borrowing to make ends meet. However, they are treated as high-risk borrowers by the financial services sector and have to pay a high price for their credit. We have heard very articulate arguments this afternoon about the problems that can create, and about various lenders in the marketplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made valuable points about the risks to families on very low incomes and the huge price that they can pay for access to some of the things that those who are able to access mainstream financial services find easy.
Credit unions offer a valuable alternative service. By working within communities and helping those most in need of support, they help people to manage their financial affairs. Hon. Members play a valuable role. It has been interesting to hear how many of them give active support as members of their local credit union. As the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, successive Governments have supported credit unions and directly helped the sector to grow. We are keen to continue that support in a sustainable way; we believe that it is important. That is why we have agreed to continue providing support from the growth fund while we carry out a feasibility study into how we should help the sector to develop in the future. We have allocated £11.8 million to continue to support credit unions and other community financial institutions in this fiscal year. We want credit unions to continue to be part of the financial services landscape.
We also have a duty to ensure that credit unions operate efficiently and offer a good range of services to a wide range of people. Many credit unions are run at a loss. Many do not offer the same range of products and services. Many cannot provide services that are available in another part of the country. We have heard much about the legislative reform order this afternoon. As I am relatively new to the issue, I had not followed the extensive process to the degree described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, but the order is there. It is happening. It will help to improve coverage.
The amendment to the Credit Union Act 1979 effectively opens up membership of credit unions to new groups, such as housing association tenants and employees of a national company, even if some of those people live outside the geographical area served by the credit union. It was either the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) or the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) who pointed out that it is important for credit unions to spread their umbrella over a wider area than they do at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made a point about credit unions becoming the bankers of the big society. He is correct to say that there is potential to drive deep into the heart of the communities that they serve.
Mr Andrew Turner
I want to point out, and I am sure that the Minister would agree, that the people who run credit unions have made a great contribution. When the Isle of Wight credit union ceased to exist, the new amalgamated credit union of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight did a great deal of work, which was carried out by individuals voluntarily in the constituencies.
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to all those involved. This is the essence of the credit union movement, and indeed the essence of the co-operative movement as a whole. If I have one regret politically, looking back over history, it is that the co-operative movement found itself on the left of politics rather than the right. The co-operative spirit has much in common with the spirit that we on the Government side of the House represent. Many of the changes that we are putting in place are designed to try and encourage people to work together. Within the credit union movement, we find that writ large.
As a result of the changes in the review, credit unions will be able to pay a guaranteed rate of interest on members’ savings. We hope that will help them to attract more savings, and so make more affordable credit available in the community. We also want them to do more. We want them to look to the future, reach out to offer new products to many more potential members, and work to provide the services that landlords and their other partners want. We need them to become more efficient, better known and more attractive—effectively, to move to the next level of potential for the credit union movement.
Credit unions need to reduce their costs, increase their capacity, and operate more efficiently by sharing back-office activity. The right hon. Member for East Ham asked a question about that. The creation of a central financial wholesale organisation for credit unions is being examined by the feasibility study, which is looking at a wide range of different options. It is being led by a project steering committee, supported by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am pleased that the issue of Jam Jar accounts was raised. Financial products such as Jam Jar accounts are very much part of the study.
Mr Andrew Smith
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the feasibility study and the welcome agenda of work it is addressing. Can he give us any indication of when the study is likely to report?
Chris Grayling
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the study is being chaired by Deanna Oppenheimer of Barclays bank. She has just finalised her report with her team, and the recommendations will be presented to Ministers shortly. We hope to be able to make that information available to the House before too long. We have not seen the report yet, but there will not be long to wait. Clearly, that restricts some of my ability to provide detailed answers to questions raised today, because these are matters that will be in the report. However, I hope that it will provide a clear blueprint and a clear direction of travel for the sector for the future.
We are bringing credit unions into Jobcentre Plus offices to try to create a greater link between credit unions and the work Jobcentre Plus is doing for the unemployed. The committee consulted the Post Office on its potential role working in partnership with credit unions. That could have benefits. A number of hon. Members made the point that such a partnership would be valuable. We will know more when the study is published.
We regard the sector as enormously important. We want to see credit unions grow and develop in an effective and efficient way, delivering support to those in debt at the bottom end of the income scale, driving to the heart of communities, attracting savings from a broader range of people and sources, and absolutely at the heart of what we hope to deliver for local communities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire says, the big society, through the community groups that will give support right across the country.
Morocco
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
The UK and Morocco go back a long way, and it is my great pleasure to have this opportunity to discuss the Government’s policy towards one of this country’s greatest friends and allies. Fortunately, unlike France and Spain, Britain has avoided the acquisitive behaviour that so complicates their history with Morocco, with a single, brief exception in 17th-century Tangier. Our amicable relationship has been enhanced recently by the appointment of King Mohammed VI’s esteemed and able cousin, Her Highness Princess Lalla Joumala Alaoui, as ambassador to London.
In 2013 arises an opportunity to cement the relationship further, with the 800th anniversary of the first official contact between the two countries. In 1213, King John sent an emissary to petition support from Sultan Mohammed Ennassir. It would be a great pity if that opportunity were lost, and I am interested to hear what proposals the Government have to celebrate the occasion or, if they have none, whether they will give the matter some serious thought.
On Friday, Morocco goes to the polls, and they will be keenly watched in the South West Wiltshire constituency, a division with more Moroccan residents than any other outside the M25. The election will cement the “new constitution project” for a citizen-based monarchy, accepted in a referendum with a remarkably high turnout on 1 July. A polling station for that was set up in Trowbridge in my constituency, which I had the great pleasure of visiting. The new Parliament will have the task of giving statutory expression to the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. The way it conducts itself will be important in facing down the critics, the more considered of whom cite scope for interpretation of caveats to the clauses in the new constitution, the reliance of the new constitution’s articles on what are called organic laws, which have not yet been written, and recourse to special commissions chaired by the King to determine much of the change anticipated.
It is important to set the context for this year’s historic referendum and general election. Morocco has, to a large extent, stood apart from the violence and disorder of the Arab Spring. The present King, Mohammed VI, has ruled for 12 years and is generally credited with liberalising his country and shifting it towards a constitutional democracy within the historic and religious constraints of a society that remains deeply conservative and traditional. His regime contrasts sharply with that of his father, Hassan II, who presided over the post-colonial period during what became known unflatteringly as the years of lead. It is significant that King Mohammed, early in his reign, pardoned thousands of prisoners, set up an arbitration body to compensate families of opposition leaders who had disappeared and caused credible elections to take place. There has been a marked improvement in the position of women, with a quota for the Parliament that will be the envy of many in this House. The rights of women have been enhanced by the King’s family law, and he has insisted that the Berber language should be taught in primary schools, a measure that complements his move towards regional autonomy in Morocco, including western Sahara.
In June, King Mohammed laid out his proposals for the referendum. The King surrendered his right to appoint a Prime Minister and uprated the status of the premier to Head of Government, with the consequent right to dissolve Parliament. The King lost the right to appoint regional leaders. The new constitution endorsed by the referendum explicitly upholds human rights, promises religious freedom, prohibits torture, backs freedom of thought, opinion and expression, permits free assembly and peaceful demonstration, and should facilitate a more free press. It calls for gender equality, and gives the minority Berber language official status.
There is an interesting version of the separation of Church and state in the differentiation of the powers of the King as Head of State and as commander of the faithful, which may be of interest to those in the UK who are concerned about the established Church, and the Monarch as supreme governor. The proposals overhaul the judiciary, and even offer an ombudsman service, but reaction in the west has been mixed, with The Economist leading under the mean-spirited headline, “A very small step”. However, it is, without doubt, a step in the right direction, and one that I am sure the Minister will support.
Perhaps because of the peaceful evolutionary change that is under way in Morocco, the country has avoided much of the mayhem seen elsewhere in north Africa. It is true that there were significant protests in Moroccan cities early this year, but as far as we can tell, they were less intent on regime change than in other countries involved in the Arab Spring. The relatively few protestors who took to the streets of Rabat, Tangier and Casablanca in the run-up to the general election focused on the Makzhen or palace elite. That is said to represent a road block to reform, which organisations such as the Brookings Institution maintain is happening too slowly. If there is a criticism of what is going on in Morocco at the moment, it usually involves the rate of change, rather than the direction of travel.
As for the protests organised by the 20 February organisation and so on, it is difficult to know what significance to assign to them, given that Morocco is caught in a pincer between economically inspired unrest in Europe and the Arab Spring in north Africa and the middle east. It is also reasonable to point out that stridency among émigrés, which is generally a barometer for unrest in troubled countries, has certainly not been experienced in respect of Morocco. I get the feeling from my Moroccan community, many members of which return regularly to Morocco and certainly have family there, and through the British Moroccan association to the Moroccan Community Association, whose meetings on the parliamentary estate I attend, that the reforms that are under way are welcomed and appropriate.
In recent years, there has been significant security and judicial co-operation between Morocco and the UK. Clearly, the ungoverned spaces of the Sahel present a threat to the west, and desertification makes it more likely that populations will move north. The Government of Morocco give every indication of appreciating the threat that that poses to peace and concord within their borders, and the danger of being seen as a repository of criminality threatening southern Europe.
In the summer, the Foreign Secretary and the Moroccan Foreign Minister, Mr Fassi Fihri, signed a memorandum of understanding on deportation on the grounds of terrorism and national security, but the detail was left out. Can the Minister explain the practical consequences of the memorandum now, how he sees it developing, and within what time scale?
It has been reported that the streams of intelligence from north Africa have reduced in recent years and months, probably as a result of political developments, the disappearance of old lines of communications with, thankfully, vanishing regimes and general chaos in the region. If so, it means that Morocco’s significance has increased. Indeed, attacks in Casablanca and Marrakesh and the involvement of Moroccan nationals in the 2004 Madrid bombings notwithstanding, terrorist activity in and linked to Morocco has been limited, and commentators have suggested that that is due in part to effective intelligence gathering and co-operation with western agencies.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot be specific in this forum, but can he comment on the development of intelligence co-operation with Morocco? As Tehran continues to act as the bully boy of the middle east, what significance does he attach to Moroccan good sense in cutting off diplomatic relations with the monstrous Iranian regime in 2009 after it started to spread its fundamentalism to the peaceful and moderate Sunni kingdom?
There are major threats to Morocco from challenging frontier security issues, and difficult-to-regulate migration. The barely governed space of southern Algeria, Mali and Niger, and vast area of the western Sahara offers a potential nest to fundamentalist terror organisations, including al-Qaeda-affiliated groups. To what extent does the Minister believe that Morocco’s ability to engage in intelligence and security has been degraded by the Binyam Mohamed episode?
Although the UK does not provide direct bilateral aid to the western Saharan people, the European Commission’s humanitarian aid office certainly does. The UK provides direct assistance to help to promote stability and to alleviate poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, and I was informed before the election that the Government were working on the EU to direct EU stability instrument funding to help to address the security situation. Can the Minister offer a progress report? What progress has been made in establishing a new embassy in Mali and political offices in Mauritania, as heralded in January 2010 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office?
The previous Government showed interest in the Moroccan imam training scheme in marginalising the religious fundamentalism that is the cause of so much trouble elsewhere. The scheme was exploring whether UK imams might train in Morocco, and I wonder whether there has been any progress on that.
In 2010, the House was informed that bilateral defence activity was “modest but important”, and the most significant seems to be Exercise Jebel Sahara, which is run regularly in the region of Marrakesh. Can the Minister say how he anticipates bilateral defence activity being developed, and for what purpose?
Helped by Morocco’s association agreement with the EU, the EU accounts for 60% of Morocco’s exports, 80% of tourism receipts and most of its large income from foreign remittances. Given the strong prospect of a double-dip recession in the eurozone, depression in southern Europe and the country’s wide and growing trade deficit, it seems likely that the pressures on Morocco from the young, educated unemployed will increase with every chance of an escalation in civil unrest and potential for terrorists to feed off poverty and grievance. Morocco is a relatively small trading partner for the UK, in contrast with, for example, France, but what measures are being taken to improve trade in goods and services between the two countries, and how does the Minister believe that might help to avoid the turmoil elsewhere in the region with its attendant security threats?
In January, I had an Adjournment debate on the western Sahara, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), responded. Can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s contribution to steering this central issue for sub-regional stability to a safe place? What has Baroness Ashton and the portentously named EU External Action Service been up to? If we must have it, it might as well do something useful in the EU’s near abroad, which the western Sahara most certainly is.
Voting arrangements for the Moroccan elections this Friday are based on Moroccan ancestry, rather than residency or citizenship. That means that a large Moroccan ex-pat community is potentially involved, although the arrangements are rather more complex than for the referendum held in the summer. There is certainly confusion at the bewildering array of parties on offer, and I regret that the very good polling stations that we saw for the referendum will not be available again on Friday. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister will take a keen interest in the outcome and in the Government who emerge, who will be headed for the first time by a Prime Minister who can be said to be truly head of the Government.
In a similar vein, the Minister will have noted that at the Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly at Berne in October the Speaker of the Moroccan House of Representatives, Mr Abdelwahed Radi, was elected president. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this important totemic step as Morocco moves towards a commendable new settlement based on constitutional democracy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on securing this debate and thank him for the work that he does as chairman of the all-party group. I am aware of the exemplary way in which he represents a large part of the Moroccan diaspora who are based in Trowbridge, where, historically, they worked in the food processing industry. I want to set out our approach to the internal and regional issues pertinent to Morocco before dealing with the key features of our bilateral relationship.
Morocco’s determination to implement political reforms predates the Arab Spring. Indeed, the new constitution takes steps to increase the power of Parliament, advance gender equality and protect minority rights. My hon. Friend mentioned that the king himself has been very much involved with the issue of gender equality, which is to be applauded. We welcome Morocco’s decision to ratify the optional protocol on the convention against torture, which shows seriousness in this regard. The parliamentary elections on Friday are the first to occur under the new constitution and have the potential to herald a new era in Moroccan politics.
The UK strongly supports the ongoing process of constitutional reform and looks forward to observing free and fair elections in Morocco. There is generally a good level of freedom of expression in Morocco, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are still some restrictions, particularly in relation to criticism of the monarchy, Islam and Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara. A number of high profile cases are a reminder that there is still more that the Moroccan authorities can do in that respect.
Our embassy maintains good, close working relationships with human rights institutions and civil society activists. It has run several human rights-related projects in recent years, including on penal reform and alternatives to the death penalty, and on supporting human rights institutions. Coupled with the reforms already being carried out, the recent constitutional change and Friday’s election reinforces Morocco's reputation as a leader of change in the region.
While setting an example in the region on political reform, Morocco has a major role to play in regional stability. At a time of great historic change in the Maghreb region, the need for strengthened political, economic and security relationships across the region appears all the more pressing. An improved relationship between Algeria and Morocco is vital. I therefore warmly welcome the news that the Moroccan and Algerian Foreign Ministers met in Rabat last week; it was the first meeting at this level for 14 years. According to some experts, improved trade between Maghreb countries could double the impact of any concessions made by the European Union and United States. Enhanced regional co-operation could also contribute to a more favourable dynamic for the resolution of the status of Western Sahara.
I must also acknowledge the role played by Morocco in reaching out across the Maghreb to the wider region. In relation to Syria, Morocco did not hesitate to join the calls of the international community in condemning the use of violence against civilians. Its support for political change in Libya and high-level engagement at the Libya contact group formed an important element of Arab support for the National Transitional Council.
My hon. Friend mentioned Western Sahara. Morocco has demonstrated its ability to play a constructive role in the region, and we encourage Morocco to continue its efforts, particularly with regard to Western Sahara. We fully support the efforts led by the UN to encourage all parties to reach a mutually acceptable solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. The kidnapping of European aid workers from the Tindouf camps is of grave concern and it raises questions about the safety of those in the Polisario-controlled camps, as well as the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Maghreb across the Sahel. This incident also underlines the need to find a solution to secure the futures of the refugee population.
My hon. Friend asked about the EU’s External Action Service. I assure him that we are in close discussions with the service. I agree with him that it is important that the service does not try to replicate what members of the EU are doing, but that it works in a symbiotic, complementary way and tries to add value to the work that they are doing rather than cutting across initiatives and diplomacy that are already in place.
I am pleased to report to the House that the UK is engaged in an open dialogue with Morocco and other parties to the frozen conflict. We are committed to working with the international community to try to find a successful resolution. We cannot forget the humanitarian tragedy caused by the continued stalemate between the parties, in some cases separating family members for more than 35 years. Morocco has made commitments to providing safeguards for the human rights of all those living in the disputed territory, as noted in the UN Security Council resolution 1979 in April. Our approach to the annual renewal of the mandate for the UN peacekeeping forces in Western Sahara remains under consideration. I encourage Morocco to demonstrate firm progress against those commitments well in advance of the Security Council discussions next April.
I hope that Morocco’s recent election to a non-permanent seat on the Security Council will provide a special impetus in this regard. We look forward to working with Morocco to address all threats to international peace and security during its two-year tenure. We consider Morocco to be a close ally on complex regional matters, and we will be seeking its expertise and experience.
I will say a word or two about our bilateral relationship, which we regard as very important. Since Morocco’s independence in 1956, UK-Morocco relations have grown steadily in importance. Today, nearly 400,000 British holidaymakers visit Morocco every year, and there is a renewed strength and impetus to the political relationship. The range and depth of our bilateral contacts reflects this. As a sign of our joint wish to deepen co-operation, the Foreign Secretary and the Moroccan Foreign Minister agreed a bilateral partnership agenda in March, setting out a number of key areas for closer working. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary made his first official visit to Morocco last month, demonstrating the importance that our Government place on this relationship.
In addition, the successful official visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall last April signifies the strong civil society links between our countries. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is involved in parliamentary exchange programmes, and the British Council has established links between 60 Moroccan and 40 British schools through the Connecting Classrooms project.
I will say a quick word about the Arab Partnership, one of the most pertinent areas of our Government’s co-operation. This initiative leads the UK’s strategic approach to the Arab Spring, working with those in the region to develop more open societies underpinned by vibrant economies. We are committed to supporting those aspirations. In Morocco, our focus is on political participation and transparency—areas that Moroccans themselves identified as key to the country’s progress. Our programme, worth approximately £500,000, is providing targeted, rapid assistance in areas where the UK can add best value.
The Arab Partnership also works to leverage funding and support through multilateral organisations, particularly the G8 and EU, to provide a strengthened offer of support to the region. Morocco’s commitment to reform has long been recognised by the EU. Indeed, it was the first near neighbour to achieve an association agreement in 2000 and an action plan for advanced status in 2008. As far as the EU’s External Action Service is concerned, we will be working alongside it to make sure that this action plan for advanced status is moved into the next phase. The UK supports greater conditionality, both positive and negative, in the EU’s relations with all its southern neighbourhood partners. As we move forward, this is an opportunity for Morocco to demonstrate, and be rewarded for, its internal reform efforts.
My hon. Friend mentioned judicial co-operation. The Arab Spring produced new opportunities for greater partnership. We have been working with Morocco consistently over a number of years and are reaping the benefits of a reinvigorated bilateral relationship. He mentioned the memorandum of understanding with Morocco concerning the provision of assurances in respect of people subject to deportation on grounds of national security. This MOU forms one component of a wider judicial package, and it will continue to be developed and moved forward. This will pave the way for greater co-ordination to ensure the protection of citizens. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this very seriously indeed. We are pleased that the Foreign Ministers were able to sign the MOU in September. The final exchange of letters is ongoing but near completion, and obviously this forms part of a much wider judicial package to increase security and co-operation between our two countries.
Let me say something about security and co-operation. As well as harmonising our judicial systems, we have been directly co-operating with Morocco on terrorism and narcotics. The bombing of the Argana restaurant in Marrakesh last April killed 17 people, including one British national, and demonstrated the shared threat that our countries face from terrorism. We have a good record of co-operating with Morocco, and the Moroccan police investigating that incident conducted their inquiries in line with post-bomb blast management provided by the UK—a good example of close and constructive co-operation between our two countries. We also sent a special police unit to aid the investigation, and we are now looking at technical work to share expertise in the use of CCTV. I hope that has answered my hon. Friend’s question about security and co-operation, and we will write to him on any additional points that may be relevant.
The security of Morocco’s borders is of direct concern to the UK given the flow of illegal drugs and migration from west Africa into Europe. Many of the drugs that flow from Latin America into Europe come via west African countries and up through north Africa. The Moroccan authorities have publicly committed themselves to tackling the cocaine trade, and they have requested assistance from the UK and Spain to combat trafficking and terrorism. Such support is part of our enhanced security and intelligence co-operation, and we will give it added impetus in the immediate future.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have placed a great priority on improving commercial links with many countries, and no country is too small to prevent us from working tirelessly to increase bilateral trade. The UK will solve its economic problems only through the export-led recovery that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have talked so much about.
We are, therefore, looking to exploit future opportunities. Morocco is an emerging economy and we are focused on building up our bilateral trade. I am pleased that International Power has recently secured energy contracts to operate a wind farm and coal-fired power stations, and I hope that other British business will follow suit. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that UK Trade & Investment will take an outwards trade delegation to Morocco in January, and we also hope to restructure the Moroccan British Business Council and increase its effectiveness as a vehicle for creating vibrant business opportunities. We see Morocco as an increasingly attractive investment for UK companies—four UK law firms have established offices in Casablanca this year alone—and Her Majesty’s Government can play a role in encouraging that trend.
As my hon. Friend said, Morocco is probably one of the most advanced countries in north Africa in terms of democratic reform, and the way to embed such reform is through trade and the creation of prosperity and wealth. The more ties based on trade that countries such as Morocco have, the more likely it is that the rule of law will prevail in the future and good governance will remain.
I hope that I have responded to most of my hon. Friend’s points, and that he agrees that the UK and Morocco now have the opportunity to move forward together in a reinvigorated bilateral relationship. We must look at other ways of underpinning that already excellent relationship, and opportunities will flow from working together on the UN Security Council. As the Minister responsible for the UN, I have seen a number of small countries join the Security Council as temporary rotating members. If we engage with those countries at an early stage, we can work with them on a constructive basis—I refer in particular to countries such as Gabon, Colombia and Lebanon that have sat on the Security Council over the past year. We already had a fairly good relationship with those countries, but it is now even better. Working with them at a time of so many global challenges meant that we had to sit down together a great deal, look at our mutual interests and work together on many different international initiatives.
During his recent visit to Morocco, the Foreign Secretary spent time discussing the challenges and opportunities posed by Friday’s elections at this exciting time with representatives from a range of political parties. The UK will continue to support Morocco and its people as they continue their journey of evolutionary political reform.
Freeview Channels
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am last but not least, Mr Streeter. I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. The mechanism for allocating channels is particularly important to the largest private sector company in my constituency, the shopping channel QVC, which employs more than 2,000 people nationwide, the majority of whom are based in Knowsley. Most of QVC’s work force are based in the UK, even though the company could move elsewhere given the nature of its business.
Although it sounds complicated and will involve a lot of acronyms, the issue under discussion is quite straightforward. QVC’s viewing figures and revenue are dependent on viewers being able to find it. As it stands, finding QVC is easy—as long as the channel remains the same—and it has 1.1 million loyal customers and many more viewers. Control of the channel number, however, rests in the hands of an organisation owned by its competitors. Such an arrangement could work with proper forward-facing regulation, but Ofcom does not actively regulate the process of channel allocation.
There have been three attempts to change the channel’s location in recent years, and another is imminent. We know that channel changes can lead to loss of revenue in excess of 35% per home. If Freeview channels were retail premises, it would be the equivalent of allowing major supermarkets to move the location of a smaller competitor at will. The issue, therefore, is about fair competition and appropriate regulation, to allow this thriving industry to create and sustain UK jobs.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I declare an interest in the debate because the headquarters of QVC will hopefully move to my constituency in the near future. My constituency is also the home of BSkyB, so I have an additional interest. On this issue, however, it seems that a group of companies is deciding the one thing that gives QVC its only competitive advantage and allows it to grow.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Lady made her point effectively and I will support her argument as my speech develops.
I have recently received helpful representations from the Interactive Media in Retail Group—IMRG—and the Electronic Retailing Association—ERA Europe. Both organisations support the case I am making today. The issue has a direct effect on QVC, but there is also a wider effect. Leaving aside QVC’s 1.1 million active customers, independent commercial broadcasters in the UK form a successful and growing sector that employs 22,000 people. Some of those broadcasters are now commercially vulnerable due to the unfair and unclear regulatory situation in respect of the Freeview platform. The allocation of Freeview channels is important to the whole of the independent commercial broadcasting industry.
According to a communications market report by Ofcom, non-public service broadcasters have a 28% share of the audience in UK multi-channel homes. That is a not insignificant number. Research undertaken by Deloitte shows that members of the Commercial Broadcasters Association—COBA—invested £432 million during 2009 in original UK content. Another survey, from 2008, showed that COBA members contributed more than £2.2 billion to the UK economy.
The Government recognise the importance of the sector and are currently undertaking a major review that is likely to lead to a new communications Bill. I welcome the rationale for that legislation, which I understand is to bring the UK’s regulatory regime into the digital age and to ensure a communications infrastructure that supports growth and innovation while protecting the public interest and consumer choice.
COBA told me that
“one of COBA’s fundamental principles is to support light touch regulation that benefits the whole market not just a few players.”
That is why handling the allocation of Freeview channels is so important. It will signal the Government’s intentions on fostering independent dynamic businesses in the communications industry and beyond.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making extremely important points. Although I am not particularly familiar with the channel in question, I certainly believe that all regulation should work on the level playing field principle, and in the circumstances he has described, it clearly does not. That underlines a view that I have stated for many years and that I hope the Minister will think about when preparing his broadcasting legislation: Ofcom should have a much broader umbrella, covering all digitised services, so that at least there is a parent body that can deal with anomalies such as the one that my right hon. Friend describes.
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is very knowledgeable on these matters, particularly on regulatory issues, wearing his hat as a Select Committee Chair. I hope that the Minister takes seriously the point that he made.
Mr Howarth
The Minister nods; I am pleased about that.
As well as being the largest private sector employer in my constituency, QVC employs more than 500 highly skilled people in Battersea. As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) said, the intention is to move to Chiswick Park in 2012. Therefore, this issue does not affect just my constituency. The objective must be a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory system for channel allocation, so that independent commercial broadcasters are not unfairly damaged.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. Could he clarify the situation? Is he saying that the allocation of channels is driven by a commercial enterprise for its own vested interests, rather than being based on viewing figures for the likes of QVC, which may therefore be pushed down the list unfairly, as against those vested interests, in the allocation of the channels?
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the point that I want to make. I will come to it in a moment.
DMOL—Digital Television Multiplex Operators Ltd—which manages the Freeview platform and allocates channels, is owned and run by the public service broadcasters BBC, and ITV and Channel 4, as well as the infrastructure provider Arqiva. As mentioned previously, that is the equivalent of allowing a major retailer to decide where local independent competitors can site their operations.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), is my right hon. Friend aware that ITV recently launched its own shopping channel, which adds more force to the argument about potential unfairness, because DMOL is partly owned by ITV? Does that not call into question what our hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) mentioned—the level playing field?
Mr Howarth
Absolutely. I am grateful for that supportive intervention. I understand that not only has ITV moved into that market and put itself in direct competition with QVC and any other shopping provider by those means; it used QVC to pilot the operation of that new service. That adds force to the point that was made earlier.
The national and European trade associations share my concerns. They said in a submission to me:
“Businesses need certainty as well as fair competition. QVC’s business is threatened by the current regulatory uncertainty around channel allocation and we call on the government and on Ofcom, to give some clarity so that UK firms, like QVC,”
can continue to serve their customers and grow their businesses. ERA Europe stated:
“Our members’ future business in the UK is under threat from an uncertain regulatory environment regarding channel allocation on the Freeview platform and we urge the UK government and Ofcom to be more transparent in this most important area.”
At the heart of the issue is the ability of the dominant players to allocate valuable channel numbers to commercial competitors without independent adjudication and due process. QVC is currently positioned on Channel 16 on Freeview. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said that he does not use QVC. If he takes the trouble to tune in to Channel 16, he might find some very useful bargains, but I will leave that up to him. He should remember that when he does so, he will be supporting jobs in Knowsley.
The issue is very important. Ofcom said in relation to DMOL that
“any regulatory issues would require consideration under the relevant multiplex licences. Pursuant to the Communications Act its activities are also subject to Ofcom’s concurrent competition law powers under the Competition Act 1998.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 497W.]
That quote is from a parliamentary written answer from the Minister.
Ofcom was in contact with me directly ahead of the debate. Its briefing sheds more light on the situation. It confirms:
“The multiplex operators are subject to regulatory requirements set out in the relevant multiplex licences, which include provisions to ensure fair and effective competition. Ofcom’s formal role in relation to DMOL’s listing policy is to”
consider “compatibility with our code” on electronic programme guides
“and consider complaints from interested parties (including DTT”—
digital terrestrial television—
“licensees such as QVC). Pursuant to the Communications Act, DMOL’s activities are also subject to Ofcom’s concurrent competition law powers under the Competition Act 1998.”
The problem is that those regulatory powers are in practice retrospective. They can apply only after the channel changes have been determined.
In relation to the electronic programme guide code, Ofcom informed me that it
“has considered from time to time whether it would be appropriate to review the Code, but has concluded on each occasion that there was no pressing need to do so. It is likely that there will be communications legislation within the next few years, and the government has indicated that it is minded to look at EPG regulation in this context. We would need to take this into account in considering the appropriate timing for any review of the Code…On behalf of multiplex operators, DMOL has initiated a detailed review of the DTT listings policies, including the criteria for how different types of channels should be listed in the EPG. It has completed a first round of consultation, and identified the need for a further consultation early next year, following detailed research it has commissioned into the views of consumers.”
Given the likely threat to jobs faced by QVC workers, the statement about there being “no pressing need” is of some concern. Saying that the regulation falls within individual multiplex licences overlooks the fact that with the exception of the utility Arqiva, the multiplex operators are also dominant channel operators and indirect competitors of independent broadcasters.
Fortunately, there is an easy to implement solution, which I am sure that the Minister will be happy to hear. DMOL should be regulated in the same way as any other broadcast television platform. For example, the equivalent operation at BSkyB, to which the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred and which reaches fewer homes, has been regulated since the late 1990s.
That is not an argument for special treatment, merely one for a level playing field, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston put it, so that independent broadcasters can compete fairly with all channels, including the public service broadcasters. I accept that public service channels should have special prominence with preferential channel numbers, but the current policy and practice for allocating logical channel numbers on Freeview unfairly disadvantages independent commercial broadcasters and disproportionately benefits the channels operated by DMOL shareholders.
We all want to ensure that the UK broadcast market remains dynamic and successful. Channel allocation on Freeview is about economic fairness, business certainty, jobs, encouragement of investment and legal principle. It is also about the importance of a broad and diverse UK television market.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to consider carefully the full implications of the current DMOL channel allocation system and its lack of transparency. I am sure that with good will and an understanding of the problem, the Government and Ofcom will between them be able to resolve the situation. In practice, that means asking Ofcom to ensure that DMOL is regulated in the same way as other platforms.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter? Secondly, I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for securing the debate and for the way he presented his concerns, which I absolutely understand. Thirdly, and in some ways most surprisingly, I apologise for not being the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). I hope that this is the last time I have to do so. He is, of course, the Minister for the arts and the media, but he is away on ministerial business, and on his behalf, I apologise.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues regarding Freeview and the allocation of channels. The debate is particularly timely, because my Department is considering the regulation on electronic programme guides as part of our communications review.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of slots and the high-level listings on EPGs, and how that might impact on viewing numbers, and therefore indirectly on businesses, such as those in his constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I absolutely understand QVC’s position and the possible impact that any decision by Digital Multiplex Operators Ltd may have on that established company. QVC is a great British company. In 18 years, it has revolutionised home shopping in the UK and grown to have about 1,500 employees in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and at least another 500 elsewhere.
The regulation of EPGs is, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, a matter for the independent regulator, Ofcom, and not directly for Ministers. While I have no powers to intervene in this case, I would like to set out the regulatory framework and what we are considering as part of the communications review. At the outset, I will give him a straightforward undertaking that I will take back what he has said today and ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has responsibility for the arts and the media, is aware of his concerns.
Andrew Miller
Will the Minister add another aspect to that? While my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) teased me about not being a shopper on QVC, my mother, who often gets into such debates, found it to be of invaluable service when she was at home as a disabled person. A lot of older people who are not experts on the internet, although my mother used the internet in her 90s, find television shopping a valuable tool. It would be grossly unfair to put people such as the disabled at a competitive disadvantage because of the competitive advantage of giant broadcasters.
Hugh Robertson
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I will ensure that his comments are also relayed to my ministerial colleague.
The Communications Act 2003 sets out the fact that it is Ofcom’s duty to draw up, and from time to time review and revise, a code to give guidance to platform operators about the provision of EPGs. Ofcom’s code of practice on EPGs is non-prescriptive about the order in which channels are placed, except for the public service broadcasting channels, which include the BBC’s digital services, channels 3, 4 and 5, and S4C in Wales.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley on securing the debate. The Minister mentioned S4C. There is an exciting prospect that EPG has to provide for local television. There is some consideration being given to using channel 8 for local television, on which Channel 4 is broadcast in Wales because of the presence of S4C on channel 4 on the EPG. Does he recognise that that issue also needs to be considered in the debate?
Hugh Robertson
Absolutely. While the Government intend for the local television channel to be channel 8 in England and Northern Ireland, we are looking at what the appropriate channel is in Wales and Scotland, given exactly the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley is particularly concerned to see that Ofcom’s code requires that other, non-PSB channels are treated on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. To guard against platform operators such as Freeview misusing their power in relation to broadcasters, Ofcom has the power to investigate potential breaches of competition law in the communications sector, such as exclusionary agreements and the abuse of a dominant position.
In summary, the listing of channels within EPGs is determined by individual platforms, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman said, such as Freeview, Sky, Virgin and Freesat, within the restrictions of Ofcom’s code and powers. It is not for the Government or Ofcom to specify exactly where every channel should be listed. It is important to note that anyone, including the broadcasters themselves, who is unhappy with how a platform operator has applied the EPG code has recourse to raise that with Ofcom as the appropriate regulator.
Mr George Howarth
I am grateful for the helpful way the Minister is responding to the debate. I would like to emphasise that the existing powers are retrospective, and that still creates uncertainty. I hope that he will feel able to address that aspect together with Ofcom.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that he has until six minutes past 5.
Hugh Robertson
Thank you for that gentle warning, Mr Streeter, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I absolutely understand that and I will ensure that his point is fed into the Department’s wider review of the 2003 Act.
The right hon. Gentleman’s concerns relate specifically to Freeview, so I shall discuss the background and the set-up of the Freeview platform. The Freeview service comprises approximately 50 TV channels broadcast on digital terrestrial television, or DTT, and is free to air. A company called DTV Services Ltd, owned and run, as he said, by its shareholders—the BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4, ITV and Arqiva—is responsible for the Freeview brand.
DMOL, which is a limited company owned by the digital multiplex operators, was set up in 2007 to co-ordinate the functions of the DTT platform. Within its remit is responsibility for setting the channel numbers on Freeview. The good news is that DMOL has initiated a detailed review of the DTT listings policies, including the criteria for how different types of channel should be listed in the EPG. It has also commissioned in-depth research on the views of consumers. Once again, I will ensure, through the Department, that the views of the right hon. Gentleman are brought to the attention of DMOL as part of that review.
DMOL proposes to launch a consultation in February. It is asking for comments on the ordering of channels within the general entertainment genre, the creation of a transactional genre, and the ordering and location of all genres beyond general entertainment. That consultation will presumably include, among others, the mother of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). It is therefore essential that everyone with views about the allocation of channels responds to that consultation. I strongly encourage the right hon. Member for Knowsley and his constituents to do exactly that.
As the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that there is a level playing field between Freeview and other platforms, let me turn briefly to the way Ofcom regulates EPGs with particular reference to Freeview. The platform operators decide EPG lists. DMOL is a body formed by the multiplex licensees to co-ordinate the operation of the DTT platform and the organisation of the EPG. I must stress that EPGs on the DTT platform are regulated by Ofcom, albeit in the circumstances intimated by the right hon. Gentleman, in the same way as other platforms.
The EPG code on DTT applies to the multiplex licensees, rather than to DMOL. That means that in the event of a complaint against Freeview over its compliance with the EPG code, Ofcom would take it up with the multiplex licensees through DMOL. Ofcom would have the regulatory power to intervene, just as it could in the event of a complaint about the EPG of any other platform. In this case, it does not make sense for Ofcom to intervene even before DMOL has held its consultation and reached a final decision on its proposed changes, which is why I am encouraging the right hon. Gentleman to respond to the forthcoming DMOL consultation with as much evidence as possible.
As hon. Members will be aware, my Department is undertaking a review of the communications sector. We are looking at a broad range of areas from television and radio to broadband and spectrum issues. I should stress that the aim of that review is to stimulate growth and create opportunities in the communications sectors, and not in any way to dictate or limit the development of markets and technologies in broadcasting or other industries.
The importance of EPGs is an area to which we have started to give detailed consideration. The Secretary of State has reflected that interest:
“Position on the EPG will probably be the Government’s single most important lever in protecting our tradition of public service broadcasting. We are actively looking at how to make that situation better, if necessary using legislation.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 543.]
That is absolutely a key area in this review. I should add that not only are we interested in looking at the issue of the EPG from the perspective of public service broadcasters, but we are aware of the immense value that many of the commercial, non-PSB channels bring in providing a wide range of viewing choices and investing in more UK content. We would like to understand more about the importance that companies place on the EPG.
There is some evidence that the position on the EPG can affect the viewing figures of a particular channel, and that may have some indirect commercial impact. For example, MTV’s slot was moved up 150 channel places on the Sky platform, from the top of the music section to the middle of the third page general entertainment section. Research published by the media consultancy Attentional suggests that the Sky audience for MTV increased by as much as 150%.
The communications review is already under way, having been kicked off by a letter from the Secretary of State in June. We have already received more than 160 responses to that letter, many of which touched on the issue of EPG and channel prominence. We are very much in listening mode ahead of the publication of the Green Paper early next year and are grateful for the opportunity to hear some of the issues today. As I said to the right hon. Member for Knowsley, I will ensure that his contribution is fed into that review.
It is important that interested parties continue to feed in their views. I am pleased that QVC was among those that responded to the open letter from the Government and I encourage it to continue to engage with that process as it moves forward.
Let me finish by expressing my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Although the Government do not have a direct role in allocating EPG places, and I do not think that anybody in this Chamber would encourage us so to do, I promise him that I will take on board what he has said today and ensure that it is fed into the review. I encourage him and his constituents to continue to engage with the review as it moves forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The vast majority of children in this country grow up safe from harm. However, the Barnardo’s report “Puppet on a string: the urgent need to cut children free from sexual exploitation”, published in January, emphasised that children are being sexually exploited here and now. It showed that this appalling form of child abuse is more prevalent than most people have appreciated.
It is clear that this abuse can be perpetrated by individuals from all sections of society. It can affect boys, girls, older and younger children, from stable and affluent homes as well as from less advantaged backgrounds, in urban and rural communities. It has a devastating and lasting impact, both on the children and young people who suffer from it and on their families.
The Barnardo’s report called for a national action plan to tackle child sexual exploitation. As Minister responsible for children and families, I asked my officials to lead the development of such an action plan and I am very pleased to be publishing it later today. I am grateful to the many national and local organisations, and other Government Departments, which have contributed to it over the last few months, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Minister with responsibility for crime and security, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and colleagues in the Home Office.
The action plan was developed in the context of the Munro review of child protection. Like Professor Eileen Munro’s final report, and the Government’s response to her review, the action plan emphasises the important role of Local Safeguarding Children Boards in ensuring that local multi-agency arrangements are in place to help and protect children and young people. The action plan is similarly child-centred, trying to see sexual exploitation from the point of view of the child or young person, as he or she goes through the different stages which might occur.
Child sexual exploitation is horrific and has no place in this, or any other, society. It is a serious crime and must be treated as such, with the perpetrators pursued more rigorously. We can only tackle it successfully by looking at every aspect of the problem: raising awareness and understanding; effective prevention and detection; securing robust prosecutions; and improving support for victims and their families. The action plan does that, bringing together for the first time actions already being taken and actions which will be taken forward in the future. Much work is currently under way and more will take place over the coming months.
Nothing is more important than keeping children and young people safe. Today’s action plan is an important step forward but there is a long way to go. I am determined that everything which can be done is done to make our children safer from sexual exploitation.
I have placed copies of the action plan in the Libraries of both Houses.
Locarno Group
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to make the House aware that I have decided to convene the first meeting of the Locarno Group on 24 November. This advisory group will support and challenge the FCO in its consideration of foreign policy.
When I set out my vision of the future of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 8 September, I emphasised the importance of strengthening the long term capability and international effectiveness of the FCO as an institution at the heart of Government, and improving our country’s capacity to pursue effective foreign policy for the years and decades to come.
I also emphasised the importance of cultivating and retaining the knowledge and expertise that has made the FCO one of the best diplomatic services in the world. The Locarno Group will contribute to this by drawing on the advice of senior FCO alumni.
The group’s discussions will be treated as confidential advice.
A copy of the terms of reference (including a list of group members) and my speech of 8 September has been placed in the Library of the House and published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 1-2 December. The health and consumer affairs part of the Council will be taken on 2 December.
The presidency is expected to propose the adoption of Council conclusions on the following:
closing the gap in health between member states through action on determinants of health, especially nutrition and physical activity;
non-communicable diseases: prevention and control of respiratory diseases in children; and
prevention and control of communication disorders in children, including innovative approaches to treatment.
The United Kingdom supports the adoption of these Council conclusions.
There is also expected to be an exchange of views on the Commission’s new public health programme, “Health for Growth”, to take effect from 2014-2020.
Under any other business, the presidency is likely to provide information on the information to patients legislative package: proposal for a regulation and a directive as regards information to the general public on medicinal products for human use subject to medical prescription and as regards pharmacovigilance. The UK supports the adoption of both of these proposals, while recognising the strong opposition from other member states towards them.
In addition, information will be provided from the presidency on several matters including a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on food intended for infants and young children and on food for special medical purposes, on the Senior Level Group and on the European Innovation Partnership. The Danish delegation will also give information on the priorities for their forthcoming presidency, which will run from January until July 2012.
Migration (Bulgarian and Romanian Workers)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I am confirming today that the restrictions currently applied to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals’ employment in the United Kingdom will continue until the end of 2013.
The Government are concerned to ensure that migration to the UK does not have adverse impacts on the employment opportunities of the domestic labour force at the current time. Because of the uncertainty of any effects, the Government are firmly of the view that transitional measures are required to mitigate the impacts of labour migration when countries newly accede to the EU.
The transitional restrictions applied to Bulgarian and Romanian workers have been in force since 1 January 2007. They restrict Bulgarian and Romanian nationals to employment that is either skilled or is in sectors where there continues to be a shortage of labour, and have therefore helped to ensure that migration from those countries delivers economic benefits to the UK.
Under paragraph 5 of annexes VI and VII of the treaty concerning the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, the UK may extend these restrictions to the end of 2013 where there is a serious disturbance to its labour market or threat thereof. We have approached the question of whether there is such a disturbance, or the risk of one, carefully. Economic events of recent years have inevitably impacted upon labour market conditions in the UK but the labour market has demonstrated a high degree of resilience, particularly in terms of levels of employment, during and since the recession. However, labour market conditions, and the extent to which they are affected by migration, are very uncertain in the current economic circumstances.
It is against that background that I have sought advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the labour market grounds for extending the restrictions. The MAC’s findings, published on 4 November, are that, on the basis of the indicators of labour market performance which it has used, the UK labour market is currently in a state of serious disturbance and that lifting the current restrictions at this stage would risk negative impacts on the labour market.
In particular, the Committee has concluded that while migration flows from Bulgaria and Romania have been relatively low, the number of Bulgarians and Romanians resident in the UK has nevertheless increased substantially since 1 January 2007 and that it is likely that removing the current restrictions would cause inward flows to increase and cause those who currently come to the UK for temporary purposes to seek more permanent employment in the UK. In addition, the Committee has suggested that the labour market impact of these outcomes would be aggravated by the likelihood that such increased labour market participation by Bulgarian and Romanian workers in these circumstances would tend to be concentrated in lower-skilled occupations where the risk of displacement of domestic workers is higher.
The Government have decided that, given their own assessment of the labour market and the MAC’s findings, retaining the current restrictions is a proportionate means of addressing any disturbance or threat. The restrictions will therefore continue in their current form until the end of 2013. I am notifying the European Commission of this decision and I am taking the necessary legislative action to extend the period of application of the current regulations.
The annual quota for the seasonal agricultural workers’ scheme (SAWS) will continue at 21,250 places for 2012 and 2013 and the annual quota for the sectors-based scheme (SBS) will continue at 3,500 places for 2012 and 2013.
Under European law, the current restrictions cannot continue beyond the end of 2013 and will therefore be lifted at that point.
Burma
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I visited Burma for three days from 15 to 17 November, the first visit by a senior Minister from the European Union since a ban on high-level engagement was suspended in April 2011. In the capital, Naypyidaw, I met President Thein Sein, Vice-President Tin Aung Myint Oo, the Speaker of the Lower House Shwe Mann, and the Ministers for Industry, Railways, Border Affairs and Health. In Mandalay I visited development projects funded by Britain. In Rangoon I spent most of a day with Aung San Suu Kyi including visiting a school run by her party, the National League for Democracy, and I met representatives of ethnic groups, other political parties, activists, civil society groups, and the recently freed political prisoner Zarganar. I was accompanied throughout by British journalists.
Speaking to members of the Burmese Government, I both welcomed the progress that the Government have recently made towards political reform and strongly urged that the momentum of reform be maintained. In particular I pressed for:
a full release of political prisoners, including 1988 generation leader Min Ko Naing;
continued progress in the dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi;
free and fair by-elections, due to be held in the next two months;
urgent moves towards a resolution to the ethnic conflicts; and
improved humanitarian access in border areas.
I made it clear that Britain would support a very significant positive international response if the reform process continued.
The President and his Ministers assured me that the reforms would continue, but gave no clear time frame and argued that considerations about stability were stalling the release of more political prisoners. The President however emphasised the importance of the dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, and expressed his hope that she and the National League for Democracy would run in the by-elections—they have since confirmed that they will. Burmese Ministers confirmed that they had opened channels of communication with armed ethnic groups. I noted that the international community was watching closely for successful outcomes on these issues.
Aung San Suu Kyi expressed her gratitude for Britain’s unwavering support for democracy, development and human rights in Burma. She stressed the need to maintain pressure for the full release of political prisoners, strengthened rule of law in Burma including the independence of the judiciary, and progress on negotiations with the ethnic groups. Aung San Suu Kyi set out her priorities for development and poverty reduction in Burma, focussing on education, health, widening the availability of small scale finance to poor families, and improving child nutrition. She underlined the importance of improving living conditions equally across Burma, including in ethnic areas.
During the visit I set out the results that British aid would deliver for the Burmese people over the next four years:
ensuring that more than 127,000 mothers give birth more safely;
preventing more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies;
helping more than 1.8 million people with bed nets to help avoid malaria;
diagnosis and treatment to reduce drug-resistant malaria;
supporting 277,000 children through primary school;
providing 110,000 women with access to affordable credit;
helping 92,000 women and men produce more food.
I also highlighted the prospect of further British help in the future if the reform process is maintained, for example to encourage wealth creation and to help to improve Government accountability, service delivery and the rule of law.
Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to parliamentary question 71220 on 13 September, Official Report, column 1072W, about information held for each individual transaction undertaken by British Transport police using the Government Procurement Card in (i) 2008-09 and (ii) 2009-10.
The correct answer is that this Government are committed to transparency and we believe the information regarding Government Procurement Cards for this financial year is the most relevant. Central Government Departments are now publishing any transactions over £500 on their websites, starting with 2011-12 quarter 1 (April-June) data and thereafter on a monthly basis. The cost of work required to obtain, contextualise and report data for previous years would exceed the cost limits of a freedom of information request or a parliamentary question.
For purposes of transparency, the Department for Transport now lists GPC spend (http://data.gov.uk/dataset/dft-gpc-spend) on its website. This includes details of spend by the British Transport police.
Civil Aviation Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
The publication of the draft Civil Aviation Bill today marks an important step in this Government’s desire to put passengers at the heart of airport operations. The proposals are designed to modernise key elements of the regulatory framework for civil aviation in the UK, to enable the sector to increase its contribution to economic growth without compromising high standards.
Much of our aviation regulation is governed by 1980s legislation and needs to be updated. This draft Bill offers a package of reforms to make both regulation and the sanctions which support it flexible, proportionate, targeted and effective. It proposes removing unnecessary regulation and unnecessary intervention by central Government. It devolves more responsibility to the independent specialist regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), while ensuring that the CAA is accountable and weighs the costs and benefits of its decisions. The draft Bill proposes that certain costs of regulating aviation should be moved from general taxation to the aviation industry.
Above all the draft Bill puts the consumer first. In the economic regulation of airports with substantial market power the CAA’s primary duty will be to consumers; that is passengers and owners of cargo now and in the future. In addition, the Bill gives the CAA a role in promoting better public information about airline and airport performance and about the environmental effects of aviation and measures taken to mitigate adverse effects.
Aviation enables people to travel for business, leisure and to visit friends and family; and it enables the rapid movement of goods to and from markets overseas. The Government want to see a successful and competitive aviation industry. We are taking forward the work of the South East Airports Taskforce to improve our major airports within the constraints of existing runways. In the longer term, we have committed to producing a sustainable framework for UK aviation by 2013 which supports economic growth and addresses aviation’s environmental impacts.
The draft Bill complements these policies. It is in three parts:
reforming the framework for airport economic regulation, following my predecessor’s statements to the House on 3 March 2011 and 21 July 2010.
modernising the framework and functions of the aviation regulator, the CAA. Some of these measures stem from the independent strategic review of the CAA by Sir Joseph Pilling in 2008 and a consultation launched by the previous Government in 2009.
transferring certain operational aviation security functions to the CAA as part of wider work to improve aviation security regulation and deliver savings to general taxation. This proposal, mentioned in the July 2011 consultation document “Better Regulation for Aviation Security”, would create a single regulator for aviation safety and security. The Secretary of State would remain responsible for aviation security policy and issuing aviation security directions to the industry.
The Government have previously announced that legislation to implement airport economic regulation reforms would be introduced early in the next parliamentary session. An opportunity has now arisen to introduce a Civil Aviation Bill into Parliament near the beginning of 2012. This would help ensure that the CAA does not have to set airport price controls for the five-year period 2014-19 under the existing system. I therefore intend to take up this opportunity. I still wish however to publish the draft Bill today to provide an opportunity, even though the time available is shorter than previously envisaged, for the Transport Committee and stakeholders to consider the proposals before they are introduced into Parliament.
It is possible that the scope of the Bill may be extended before it is introduced. One area which could be included is the reform of the Air Travel Organisers’ Licence (ATOL), following the recently finished consultation on measures to protect consumers better in the 21st century holiday market and help create a more level regulatory playing field for businesses.
Committee on Standards in Public Life (13th Report)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government are grateful for the Committee on Standards in Public Life report which was published yesterday, and will study it carefully.
Some key principles can be drawn from the report. Properly funded, vibrant political parties are vital to a healthy democracy and a key part of the UK’s constitutional framework. The amount any one individual, organisation or institution can give in political donations should be limited. Fairness between parties with different types of funding is crucial. So too is fairness for the taxpayer. Like the Committee, the Government accept that the state has some role to play in ensuring these principles apply in reality.
The Government believe that the case cannot be made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when budgets are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the highest priority. But there is a case for looking carefully at whether existing levels of support could be used more effectively.
We remain committed to limiting donations and reforming party funding. So the Government accept in principle the Committee’s recommendation that donations to political parties should be capped. But the level of a cap will need to be considered with reference to other elements of a reform package, in particular the impact on the ability of parties to continue to raise sufficient funds and the absence of any additional support from the state.
We are also of the view that the report is right to recognise a new party funding settlement must include genuine reform in respect of trade union donations.
Reform remains a priority and is best achieved as far as possible by consensus. To that end we plan to continue cross-party discussions based on the principles identified by the Committee and the Government’s reform commitments.
Employment Law Review
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government believe the UK economy should be supported by a framework of laws that ensures we have a strong and efficient labour market which is flexible, effective and fair. Today the Government are announcing a series of measures following outcomes from our employment law review process.
Employment Tribunal Reform
Today the Government have launched their response to the Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation and announced that we are commissioning a fundamental review of the current rules of procedure for employment tribunals1.
The publication of our response to the Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation is a significant milestone in our wider review of employment law. We believe the measures set out in our response today will deliver a more streamlined and efficient employment tribunal system, provide both employers and employees with greater access to methods of early dispute resolution and support growth by giving employers more confidence to take on new workers.
The legislative measures outlined in our package will be taken forward when parliamentary time permits.
On behalf of the Government, I have asked Mr Justice Underhill, the outgoing president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, to lead a fundamental review of the rules of procedure for employment tribunals. A “working group”, chaired by Mr Justice Underhill, will undertake the review itself and report back to Ministers with recommendations. It is our intention that the review will develop and recommend a revised procedural code, with a view to ensuring that robust case-management powers can be applied flexibly and proportionately in individual cases coming before employment tribunals.
The review will commence in November 2011 and will run for six months. The working party will be invited to provide recommendations by the end of April 2012.
Dismissal
We are going to be seeking views on a proposal to introduce compensated no-fault dismissal for micro-firms with fewer than 10 employees. We will also look at ways to slim down existing dismissal processes, which can be, and are often perceived to be, lengthy and unfair to both employers and employees. We will therefore seek views on how we might simplify them, including potentially working with ACAS to make changes to their code, or supplementary guidance for small businesses.
TUPE and Collective Redundancies
The Government are also looking at the current rules on consultation in collective redundancy situations. Today I am launching a call for evidence on the experience of employers and employees in collective redundancies. The call for evidence will seek to identify where changes, if they are thought necessary, could be made that will help improve the ability of businesses to restructure, while ensuring that employees have access to support in finding alternative training or employment opportunities.
Some businesses have raised concerns that the current TUPE arrangements are overly bureaucratic and may in some areas, such as service provision, unnecessarily gold-plate European rules. Therefore, today I am launching a second call for evidence on the effectiveness of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in protecting employees’ rights and smoothing the process of business restructuring. This is a complex area of legislation and it is important we gather evidence from a wide range of stakeholders in considering the case for change.
Copies of the Resolving Workplace Disputes Government response document, the Fundamental Review Terms of Reference and both calls for evidence have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
1 The existing procedural rules for employment tribunals are contained in schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004.
Grand Committee
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber this afternoon while we are sitting, which seems likely, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and resume after 10 minutes.
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I was truncated once again shortly before we finished on Monday. I wanted to add just a few words to the powerful speeches that were made on this amendment—none more powerful than that of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who apologises for being unable to be here because he is chairing another committee. The points that he made on entitlement to benefit were central. If one is going to get into a situation where capping prevents people getting what Parliament has passed as being their entitlement, there is something that is fundamentally wrong. I suspect that the Minister will have heard the points that have been made. A colleague whom I shall not name suggested that I give the Government hell; I am not going to do that because I am sure that the Government are in listening mode and will take on board the points that have been made. They are central to arguments about social security and I hope that the Minister will respond in those terms.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we are talking still about benefit caps. We left the debate on Monday, I think, accepting that families hit the cap, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained so straightforwardly for us, through the interplay of both high rents and large families, a problem particularly in London and the south-east, with 70 per cent of those affected in social housing. Amendments tabled during our previous day’s debate sought, first, a more appropriate comparator by excluding child benefit in particular from benefit cap calculations—this was an argument by my noble friend Lady Lister—so that we could compare like with like and not apples with oranges. A second group of amendments suggested, wisely, a transitional period of grace before the cap was imposed. This is a theme to which I think we will all want to return, because we need a period of grace for quite a lot of the measures being introduced in order for them to settle down before the whole weight of penalties comes into play. We ran a similar amendment on housing benefit earlier. A third group of amendments sought to exclude subgroups from the caps—for example, those in supported housing, carers and kinship carers.
I want to focus on two aspects of all the debates that we have had so far, plus on the issue of carers, which was raised so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and issues of housing benefit raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I support the thrust of all the amendments. There was one golden rule of public finance that I learnt from my time in the department: amendments abating or removing cuts always cost more than the cuts originally saved, even if the situation is not restored to the pre-existing status quo. That may be the case here again.
I wish to raise some wider questions on Amendment 99A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She argued powerfully that just as PIP will remain outside of UC and the cap, so, equally, should carer’s benefit not be included in the cap, because they mirror each other, as they do in real life. The financial pressures, the fatigue and exhaustion, the using-up of savings and the social isolation apply just as much to many carers as they do to so many disabled people. We know that the Minister is sympathetic to carers, as is the whole House. So far, however, we do not yet know how many carers face a reduced earnings disregard. We do not know how many carers will lose carers allowance, because of the possible uneven mapping of the existing DLA passported benefit to the new PIP. We also do not know whether CA will come within the cap.
Given that the Bill is going through Committee stage here I feel that we are entitled to require the Minister to give us this information before we start Report stage and that we should not have to wait until we get to the clauses specifically about carers. If a single carer—it could be no carers, or it could be 100,000 carers—loses their entitlement to a passported benefit they will come into the framework of in-work conditionality which we have to deal with before we get to the carers clauses, at which point the Minister tells us he will be able to give us the information we want. We cannot do it that way round. It is not fair to the carers and it is not fair to Committee Members, who have been trying to do our best to get from the Minister—I am sure that he wants to be helpful on this—this information on the situation in which carers will find themselves. We must know everything about this situation before Report; otherwise some of us will be demanding that we go back into Committee, in the middle of Report stage, in order to take on board information that should have been available to inform earlier debates. It is not a proposal I would wish to argue. It is annoying for everybody concerned, but I feel quite strongly that it is not reasonable to ask us to proceed in this way.
The second area is housing benefit. Again, I strongly support the amendments moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Best. However, perhaps I may widen the point to remind the Minister of where we are so far and what we so far know, and then to ask him what advice he would give to a housing association such as mine—I declare an interest as chair of Broadland Housing Association. First, there is under-occupying. So far we have learnt that many of our poorest tenants would be required to move to smaller accommodation—except that we do not have it; it does not exist and it will not be built in the next few years. So the tenants will stay put and be fined on average about £20 a week. They have no savings, so they will run up arrears. However, we will be asked to avoid evicting them on grounds of decency as well as cost savings. Although such tenants would not be intentionally homeless through arrears generated by benefit cuts—as the Minister has helpfully agreed on the record—we would in any event have to rehouse them, probably in the house next door, if we evicted them. We will get substantial arrears from—although not pensioners—perhaps one-fifth of our tenants. I do not know.
We will perhaps also be faced, as we found from the discussion last week, with some tenants who are up against the housing benefit or UC cap. They too will face arrears, and again we will be expected as social landlords to avoid evicting them for what is not their fault. Again, arrears for us will mount.
We may also face cuts in housing benefit for those with supported housing in its various forms, although obviously this is a much smaller group. Again their arrears may mount, and again those will pass to the housing association.
Finally—an issue which we have not yet debated—we will certainly face substantial arrears in the move to direct payments to tenants rather than to the landlord.
Each of these four changes in housing benefit from DWP will plunge social housing landlords into mounting arrears. What is my housing association to do? We cannot raise rents to compensate for those arrears because we are at our fixed-target rent and DCLG does not allow us to go above it. We cannot get extra revenues from HCA or DCLG—indeed, they have cut our capital revenues by some 60 per cent. Housing associations could well find their accounts qualified, at which point the banks may threaten to reprice their capital loans because of infringement of a covenant, at which point our building programme falls.
I suppose that we could cut staff but the Tenant Services Authority within the HCA requires us to improve services. A 95 per cent satisfaction rate on any of the criteria it produces is required, which means that there must be staff on the ground, and quite rightly so. The driving-up of standards equals staff, which means that you cannot cut in that field either.
Put those four cuts together and they could send many housing associations into the red. Any one or two of these proposed benefit changes would be difficult to manage, but to face all four would be unbelievably difficult. I warn the Minister that he could be jeopardising the financial stability of a swathe of housing associations across the country. How then will the Prime Minister’s newly voiced concern for affordable housing be met? Given that 95 per cent of all housing stock that will exist in 10 years’ time has already been built, we cannot adjust the stock to meet what I believe is very wrong-headed, and in some places downright indecent, changes to HB. Some of us feel very strongly about this and it would seriously jeopardise our support for UC. DWP’s cuts in housing benefit will be offloaded to housing associations as arrears.
Goodness knows that local authorities are strapped for cash with 30 per cent cuts, but at least they have other financial resources. Housing associations do not. I repeat to the Minister that his savings will be our debt. DWP and DCLG have to get their act together. As I suggested at Second Reading, not entirely jocularly, if we could persuade DCLG to give up its batty scheme of localising council tax benefit with all the savings that accompany it and trade it for protecting the housing benefit, which would finance the homes we need and keep people in the homes that they want, UC would be welcomed widely across the country. I warn the Minister to take this issue very seriously. It will be very difficult for those in the field of social housing to cope when his cuts become our arrears with no capacity to meet them.
Baroness Meacher
I support Amendment 99A, which would exempt from the benefit cap, as others have mentioned, claimants with entitlement to carer’s allowance or additional allowances within universal credit for claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities. I am sure that this amendment was moved extremely ably by my noble friend Lady Hollins.
Perhaps I may make a couple of comments about the cap more generally. As Cross-Benchers, we do not normally refer to any political activities that we might have undertaken even in the distant past. Over a quarter of a century, however, I have spent rather a lot of time knocking on doors. One incredibly powerful recollection that I have is that the perception of the so-called scrounger was always the biggest single issue on the doorstep, even bigger than immigration. We cannot get away from the fact that low-income earners bitterly resent neighbours who they regard as being on benefits and, apparently, seeming to do rather better than they themselves. It is important that low-income earners feel that they are benefiting from going to work, which was the objective of the tax credit system. I strongly support the principle of that, albeit that there were a few problems with complexity.
As for the political motivation behind the benefits cap, I understand that people must have that incentive to work and that those in work should not resent those who are out of work. I have concerns, however, which I believe others have expressed, about the cap as a mechanism for achieving that sense of fairness. My understanding is that the design of the universal benefit should achieve this objective if only, as others have said, the council tax benefit were incorporated within it—at least except for a small number of very large families and some people living in very high cost areas.
I suggest to the Minister that the Government give some thought to finding a formulation in the legislation to achieve their fairness objective as between claimants and low-paid earners without resort to the notion of the cap. I know that the Secretary of State is extremely committed to this cap because it is a beautifully simple little message about being tough on claimants, if one is really honest about it. However, the Secretary of State should think carefully about whether this is acceptable within the traditions of democracy in this country. The aim, of course, would be to avoid relinquishing parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. That is important because the levels and structure of benefits should not be open to change by the Executive without reference to Parliament. I understand that that is possible with the Bill as drafted. I know that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but that is my understanding.
As regards this amendment, if the Government are determined to have the benefit—and I still hope that they are not—one group of claimants who clearly should be exempt are carers. About 200,000 children in the UK are being raised by grandparents, older siblings or other family members and friends. These carers step in to bring up a child or children as a result of very difficult family circumstances which often involve drug or alcohol misuse, abuse or neglect, death or serious illness, domestic violence or imprisonment. These carers are saving the taxpayer very large sums. These households are often large, simply because they have children of their own and then bring in others, perhaps five or more; so they will be disproportionately affected by the cap. I am sure that others have already mentioned this issue but I hope that the Minister will address it directly.
The idea of imposing a cap or some form of benefit control on large families is presumably to discourage parents from having more children than they can readily cope with, but that argument does not apply at all to carers who take on other people’s children. I do not know what the Minister feels about that point. Is that actually the main incentive behind the cap in relation to these households? Have I misunderstood? I would welcome his clarification. I know that he will want to support carers and hope that he is in a position to hold out some hope of concession on this issue. I hope that, at the very least, he will take this matter away for consideration.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I know that I have already spoken once but I want to ask a question now rather than jump up while the Minister is speaking, because I do not think that we have covered it so far. It is about free school meals. I believe it has been made clear that free school meals as an in-kind benefit will not be taken into account as a benefit received for the cap. However, the Government are currently consulting through the Social Security Advisory Committee about how such passported benefits should be treated with the universal credit. Has the Social Security Advisory Committee been advised about what would happen if it were to recommend that free school meals should become part of universal credit cash payment? Would that bit be treated as separate so that it is not taken as part of the cap, as it would be if it were still paid in kind, or would it be treated as income for the cap? That could be quite an issue in determining whether noble Lords want to support payment in kind or in cash. If the Minister will cover that in his response, I shall be very grateful.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I shall not speak at any length because I was not able to be here for the previous day in Committee, but I am very concerned about the effect of the Government’s proposals on carers.
On paying rent to tenants rather than landlords, does the Minister know what the estimated fraud is at present? A few years ago I set down a Question in the House and it emerged that payment to landlords was causing fraud of about £2 billion a year, mainly because they put in applications for addresses that did not exist. If that is the case it slightly affects the statistics, and it must mean that paying to tenants would probably be more efficient.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, before we adjourned on Monday we had very significant contributions from noble Lords, as we have had today. We heard a powerful case from my noble friend Lady Lister against the principle of the cap, and, indeed, a brave speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about why in his view these clauses are irredeemable, a point which was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, a moment ago. Nevertheless, I believe that we must try to amend Clauses 93 and 94, because to leave them unconstrained would leave some of the most vulnerable in our country subject to major injustice.
This second group of amendments seeks to introduce exemptions from the cap, either for particular groups or for specific benefits. Amendment 99ZB, moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, and Amendment 99AD, to which we have added our names, exclude, in the first case, child benefit, and, in the second case, all elements paid with respect to children, from the calculation of total income from benefits for the purposes of the cap. As we have seen, at present the proposals have a disproportionate impact on children who can, of course, do nothing themselves to change their behaviour to escape from the impact of the cap. Moreover, as discussed, the cap is not only unfair but inconsistent in its treatment of these benefits which are included as income for those out of work but not in calculating the level of the cap. We support these amendments, and if the Minister is not able to do so, we would ask him exactly why these benefits are to be included in the calculation of the in-work but not the out-of-work income.
Amendments 99A and 99AAA, spoken to respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Tyler, create exemptions for, first, carers, and, secondly, family and friends as carers. They have had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Like them, we are keen to understand the Government’s thinking on this. The Government’s impact assessment says that the impact on those affected will be that they need to choose between taking up work—of course, the cap does not apply to those entitled to working tax credit—reducing their non-rent expenditure or moving to cheaper accommodation or area. Can the Minister tell us which of those options he expects families who are caring to take up? I believe that he should especially answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about why he considers that carers do not fit the description of working hard and playing their full part in society.
Amendments 99AB and 99D, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and to which we have added our names, provide an exemption from the cap for those in supported, sheltered or temporary accommodation. We know that those families may be particularly vulnerable and face real problems if forced to move due to a reduction in their housing benefit. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, families in temporary accommodation have not chosen to live in high-rent housing; they have been placed there due to there being no other options available. It seems particularly unfair to penalise them for a situation over which they have had little control. As Shelter, Crisis, Homeless Link and the National Housing Federation have stated, the caps for households in temporary accommodation create the prospect of a spiral of homelessness where households lose their income due to the overall benefit cap, but are unable to access accommodation under the main homelessness duty because they are still subject to benefit restrictions.
Amendment 99AA and 99C create exemptions for those who have recently started claiming benefits because of job losses. At present, the benefit cap will penalise those who have just lost jobs for decisions about their rent level or family size taken while employed. If it achieves its intended effect of forcing families to move to cheaper accommodation, the benefit cap is likely to increase hugely the disruption caused by job loss for such families and reduce the chances of them finding employment rather than giving them the level of security that the benefit system was designed to provide for people who have lost their job.
My noble friend Lady Drake spoke with some force, as did the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the traumatic situation facing people when they lose their jobs and at that very point confront what might be the further traumatic consequences of the benefit cap. As my noble friend declared, a modern welfare system is intended not only to incentivise people to work and to address benefit dependency but to support hard-working families with a clear work ethic in managing a flexible labour market. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees.
We are told that much of the thrust or motivation behind the Bill is to encourage people into work, to keep them there and to ensure that work is rewarded. The group of claimants who would be covered by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Donaghy are exactly the people who do not need any such incentivisation. They have indeed been working, possibly for decades and perhaps in hazardous situations since all have been injured at work. It is part of our contract with employees, which goes back to some of the earliest social legislation of workmen’s compensation Acts, that those hurt in the course of their work should be compensated, ideally by the employer or, failing that, by the state. This benefit is paid to all who qualify regardless of whether they are in work. It therefore cannot ever act as a disincentive to earning as the recipient continues to receive this money regardless of whether they have other earnings. It is compensation for perhaps being less able to work, for finding work more tiring or for not being able to return to one’s original occupation, but it does not diminish the financial advantages of working as it is paid out alongside any earnings. The point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy was that to save perhaps £1 million we hurt those who have already been hurt at work. Is that fairness? I do not think so.
There remain some fundamental questions to be answered. I hope that the interlude since Monday will have given the Minister the opportunity to marshal his thoughts on some of those. We heard on Monday a reiteration of the Government’s position that households getting out-of-work benefits should not,
“receive a greater income from benefits than the average weekly net wage for working households”.
Can the Minister say whether this policy overrides any cost implications? Should the reductions in benefit expenditure from the cap be less than costs engendered, be it through homelessness, reductions in the number of people being able to care, the extra expense of supporting disrupted vulnerable families or the costs of bureaucracy in administering the system, would the policy still be for the cap to prevail? The Minister stated on Monday:
“The benefit cap provides a clear, simple message that there has to be a maximum level of financial support that claimants can expect the state to provide”.—[Official Report, 21/11/11; col. GC 345.]
Yet, we heard the welcome news that childcare costs were to be excluded. So what is the principle—if any part of this policy could be described as principle—which determines those items of support that can potentially be received in excess of the cap and those which cannot? What is the policy?
Perhaps the starkest example of an unfair element in the proposal is, as outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the treatment of child benefit. This is a non-means-tested benefit paid to all families whether in or out of work and has very high take-up rates. It is included in the total of benefits but not included in the comparative income level. My noble friend Lady Lister called this patently unjust, as it is. Where there is a demonstrable, illogical injustice of this nature which collides with the rhetoric and intent of the cap, on what basis is the argument for justice jettisoned in favour of the cap? Perhaps the Minister will explain that to us.
The Minister is an enthusiast for the universal credit. This is the approach which merges in and out of work support, will be easily understood, will mean that it always pays to be in work rather than out of work and will change the paradigm of people’s attitudes to work. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, touched on that point. If all this is right, what remaining role is there for the benefit cap? Before we reach universal credit, the cap is apparently to be administered by local authorities’ deductions from housing benefit. Can the Minister tell us what happens if the housing benefit component is insufficient to cover that, possibly because of support for mortgage interest being included in the calculation rather than a rental housing benefit amount? Will universal credit mean a greater range of support is apparently at risk when it is introduced? Can the Minister tell us about the practicalities of all this when the housing benefit and council tax benefit service has been outsourced by so many councils? My noble friend Lady Hollis raised some very practical issues about the impact of this on housing associations. What will it actually mean?
These are not theoretical questions but questions that will be faced, and faced in the near term. I do not believe that we have yet had the answer to the question posed by several noble Lords on Monday, that if most of the people to be affected by the cap are those for whom there is no full work conditionality, what is the change in behaviour that this policy is designed to achieve? We need to hear from the Minister on these points and on the whole range of other questions that were raised earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, these amendments seek to provide exemptions on the face of the Bill from the application of the benefit cap for a wide range of different groups. I would like to start by repeating what I said on Monday. We have always been clear that we will look at ways of easing the transition for families and providing assistance in hard cases. We are very aware of concerns about the impact of the cap in specific scenarios. We have always said that we will take account of the sort of issues raised in this debate when preparing the regulations next year. The clause has been drafted to give us powers to set a cap that achieves its purpose in the fairest way possible.
Let me take this early opportunity to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that I have considered the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of this policy. I am content that the way in which we will implement these clauses will meet those requirements.
Let me also clarify early on the point about behavioural change and the logic of applying the cap to people with reduced conditionality—a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Our policy aim is to achieve a range of positive effects through changing attitudes and expectations. Clearly, we intend in particular to improve work incentives and reinforce the expectation that people of working age should work. However, it is perfectly reasonable to encourage and help people towards employment even if they are not currently expected to work.
I said on Monday that our original estimate was that only about 10 per cent of the households that might be capped would be subject to full conditionality, through the JSA regime. However, it is wrong to say that the remainder will have no work-related requirements. A significant proportion will be people subject to work-focused interviews or work preparation and who will be building towards work. I said on Monday that I would provide the Committee with a breakdown of the caseload of households which might be capped. I also said that we are in the process of updating our figures. These indicate that a higher proportion, about a third, will be subject to full conditionality. I will provide the full set of figures as soon as they become available.
The key point is that if we are to tackle the negative effects of the current system then it makes no sense to exempt people from the cap simply because they are not currently subject to full work-related conditionality. That would not change attitudes and would be very likely to further entrench the problems of worklessness and dependency that we are trying to address. We have therefore been very careful in providing exemptions and deliberately kept the list short.
We have always said that we will exempt households that are entitled to working tax credit and that there will be an exemption for working households on universal credit. I have already explained that I am not yet in a position to provide details of this, but I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we are very conscious of the issue of cliff edges and the need to consider the impact of thresholds on households whose earnings fall.
We have always said that we will exempt war widows and widowers and that we will exempt households with someone in receipt of DLA or constant attendance allowance completely from the effects of the cap. I can confirm that this exemption will also extend to those in receipt of attendance allowance and PIP when it is introduced.
I am aware of representations already made that recipients of industrial injuries disablement benefit should be exempt from the cap in the same way as recipients of DLA. However, I do not think that these groups are in exactly the same position. DLA is paid to people to help with the extra costs arising from their disability. Other than through constant attendance allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefits do not reflect whether the recipient’s disability or illness necessarily brings extra financial costs.
We will be exempting people who are in receipt of constant attendance allowance because it serves the same purpose as DLA, but that does not apply to other industrial injuries payments.
I welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the important issue of carers. The DLA exemption will mean that the cap does not affect a carer in a case where, as she said, the person being cared for is a partner or dependent child. Households where a member receives carer’s allowance but no members receive DLA or PIP will however not be exempt. In cases where the recipient of DLA is not deemed to be in the same household as the recipient of carer’s allowance both will be looked at separately and for benefit cap purposes their individual entitlements will be assessed independently. We have also said that we will look at ways to ease the transition for families and provide assistance in hard cases.
On the passport, as I said, I will seek to set out our intention for the passporting arrangements for PIP to carer’s allowance before the start of Report stage. I hope that that is adequate assurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
No, my Lords. The Minister made that clear at the last sitting, but unless we know the actual numbers, as opposed to the structure, we will not know how many carers currently enjoying carer’s allowance, if I may use that word, will lose it and, as a result, become subject to full in-work conditionality—a clause in the Bill that we have to deal with before we get to carer’s benefits.
Lord Freud
By the time that I am able to set out these arrangements Committee Members will have a tight band in which to make a judgment. Although it will not be precise I hope that there will be a reasonable degree of precision to enable Members to reach key judgments.
As I confirmed on Monday, support for childcare—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister seems to be moving off PIP. When we discussed PIP earlier I asked a question and the Minister said that it would be appropriate to discuss it as part of the benefit cap. I do not think that he has addressed the question. How many people does he estimate will be affected by the cap as a result of the PIP waiting period going up from three months to six months, and will he consider backdating entitlement for those who then become eligible for PIP?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords; that is an excellent question in this sense. I have made clear that we are looking at transitional arrangements, and I will look at precisely this issue of the timing with PIP in the light of those transitional arrangements as people move through. Clearly I have already committed to looking at the three months and the six months, so I have something of a three-handed chess operation to get through, but I hope to come back with the pieces in the right place—or, rather, although the pieces might be in position, they might not be in the right place as far as the noble Baroness is concerned. It will at least be a clear understanding of the position. I absolutely bear in mind the point that she has made.
The noble Baroness’s other question was on school meals. I am happy to commit that, however we restructure the provision of the passported benefit of school meals, it will remain outside the cap in the same way as childcare.
With regard to the kinship care amendment, we have already discussed and recognised in Committee the valuable role that kinship carers fulfil. I made a personal commitment, supported by the Secretary of State, to look at a range of issues affecting this group. I have already had a number of meetings with organisations that support kinship carers to help me better understand their priorities. These carers are able to receive support for the children in their care through the benefit system as, unlike approved foster carers, they have access to child benefit and child tax credit on the same basis as parents. Any payments they receive from the local authority will be disregarded. This parity of treatment with parents will be continued with the introduction of universal credit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That is very helpful and clear, but the point being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others was that kinship carers very often take on children additional to those already in their family. Therefore, we are much more likely to see fairly large households with possibly five or six children and, as a result, those families could immediately be up against the benefit cap. How would the noble Lord suggest that is going to be addressed?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I accept the importance of this issue. There are a lot of angles to it, but I fully accept its importance and the argument that discouraging kinship carers could actually have a perverse effect, certainly in terms of cost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issue of children at risk. We as a Government take our responsibilities to vulnerable children and vulnerable parents very seriously. It is clear that such families are likely to have multiple problems that may not be solved by benefit payments alone. The noble Baroness is concerned that the benefit cap will force such households to be constantly on the move, which will make it harder for local authorities and support services to keep track of them. We recognise that a more co-ordinated cross-government response is needed, and so last December the Prime Minister announced a new national campaign to try to turn around the lives of the most troubled families in England—there are around 120,000 of them—by the end of this Parliament. Local areas are being encouraged to develop a new approach to supporting these families. It involves redesigning services so that each of the most troubled families is supported by a single key worker who helps them turn their lives around and engage successfully with education and employment. I can assure noble Lords that my officials will work closely with other departments to support the Prime Minister’s plan for these vulnerable families and ensure that those who may be subject to the cap will be given all the help and information available.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that important information about the 120,000 or so problem families—I think that is the term being used. The three categories in Amendment 99B, which was tabled in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, were children who were subject to a child protection plan, a child in need assessment or a common assessment framework team. Does he believe that those three categories are covered by the 120,000 problem families definition? I confess that this is not my specialist area, but the reason I ask is that I understand that those families, at whom that policy is targeted, are people who are presumed to be taking significant funds from a large range of public agencies. It is quite possible for a child to have a potential vulnerability that a social service department is looking at without the family necessarily being in that position. The questions I was raising were about vulnerable children, not necessarily the children the Minister is describing, but I may have misunderstood. Perhaps he can help me.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not quite sure, off the top of my head, how the mapping of these vulnerable families is worked. The sign just made to me by the noble Baroness, which normally is a sign for “Can I have the bill please?”, we can convert to mean, “Can I have a letter?” and I will be pleased to do that.
Baroness Sherlock
I would settle for a few million but a letter will do nicely.
Lord Freud
On the child benefit cap, Amendment 99ZB would require us to exclude child benefit when calculating a household’s total entitlement to welfare benefits for the purposes of applying the benefit cap. Amendment 99AD would go further and require that we exclude all-child related benefits. Both would result in household’s being able to receive benefits at a level above that which we have announced for the benefit cap. We believe that ultimately there has to be a limit to the overall amount of financial support that households in receipt of out-of-work benefits can expect to receive in welfare payments. Like other welfare benefits, benefits for children provided by the state are funded by taxpayers and should be taken into account along with other state benefits when applying the cap.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will say more about that. I do not know about other noble Lords but I am afraid that I do not find that enough. I understand the broader argument about the limits and, as the Minister knows, I disagree. There has been talk about a level playing field. Will he explain to the Committee how the Government justify the fact that child benefit is being taken into account on one side of the equation and not on the other when we know that all those families on median earnings are getting child benefit? That is what I do not understand. In the previous session, I think it was my noble friend Lady Hollis who referred to comparing apples and pears. We are not comparing like with like.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I acknowledge that we are not comparing like with like. We are looking at a sensible level at which to put the maximum benefit payment. The level that we are looking at is the equivalent of a household earning £35,000. I think that one can overelaborate the logic, which I will not attempt to do here.
Amendment 99AA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, would introduce a grace period. I accept that there will be occasions when changes occur that are beyond a household’s control. We have said that we are looking at what transitional arrangements might be appropriate. The arguments that I was laying around the PIP are equally applicable here.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Perhaps my noble friend will assist me. I have been worried a couple of times in this debate, both the other day and today. I would be grateful if he could clarify what seems to me to be a certain ambiguity in the use of the word “transition”—of course, not necessarily from his lips. This can mean one of two things: it can mean either a running-in arrangement to make it softer and more acceptable, and better understood before the policy is introduced, as it were, in macro; or it can mean the micro issue about how one deals with the individual case which is to be handled in a humane way. Does he agree that those are both important but distinctive characteristics? As we develop this argument perhaps into the next stage of the Bill, can we make sure that we keep them both in mind and address them separately?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords. Empson wrote a book called Seven Types of Ambiguity and my noble friend has cited two of them. I can clear up this particular dual ambiguity: the word “transition” here applies both to the running-in of the system and to the timing of how it will affect particular people when the system is fully run in.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Some of the Minister’s common phrases are “soon” and “very soon” and we are beginning to decode them. Another one is about the possibility of discretionary housing allowance being extended to plug all possible gaps in the system, and we have had some discussion on that. It would be very helpful if he could circulate a paper to us on all the areas where he has assured us that there are going to be transitional arrangements so that we can see what they will look like.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not think that I am in a position to do that. I think that I will have to leave it to Hansard to pick up where I have applied the phrase “transitional arrangement”.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Forgive me, the question was not how many times the noble Lord has used the phrase but what it means in practice. Is there a three-year run-in? What are we talking about here?
Lord Freud
All I am able to say at this moment is that there will be transitional arrangements and help for hard cases.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord again raises the issue of help in hard cases. Can he give us some indication of what he counts as hard cases, and of which, within the potential group of people who will be hit by the cap, he would say were soft cases?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am being enticed by the velvet tones of the noble Lord. I am afraid that as we build the regulations to tackle the issue of hard cases, I can only say that we are looking at transitional arrangements. I am sorry but I cannot go any further at this stage.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think that we understand that. However, does the Minister recognise the dilemma with which the Committee is faced? We have a broad framework which the Minister says gives the opportunity of reducing the cap, but we have none of the detail which is absolutely crucial to understanding how it will work and who it will impact. Without providing that he is facing the Committee with an impossible dilemma. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is right and these clauses are irredeemable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, it also means that the noble Lord will face a lot of amendments on Report, which he would not need to face, calling for breathing spaces or a transitional period of one year for people who suddenly lose their jobs or are suddenly exposed, at 27 or 28, to living in a single room, and so on. If he were able to give some clarity about what he proposes, he could wipe out possibly a dozen amendments.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have been set a challenge and a reward. It would be lovely to collect on that, but I cannot make any further assurances.
I shall continue to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Apart from the transitional arrangements that I have talked about, the underlying position is to ensure that people understand that they have to take responsibility for the decisions that they make in their lives in the light of what they can afford, and they cannot always look forward to the state stepping in to make good any financial shortfall.
I shall continue on to the more technical areas raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, on temporary accommodation and supported and sheltered housing. The amendments provide an exemption for households to which local authorities owe a duty because they are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, and for those living in supported or sheltered accommodation. As I said on Monday, discretionary housing payments will not be included as part of the cap, but in wider terms it is too early to say how we shall treat those cases for housing cost purposes in 2013 and beyond. We are exploring options for the treatment of housing benefit for people living in temporary accommodation within universal credit and the overall benefit cap.
Noble Lords may be aware that we recently consulted on high-level proposals to change the method by which help with rent is calculated for those who live in certain supported housing in the social and voluntary sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated, there is a series of issues here. We are working very closely with local authorities, housing associations and other government departments, including the devolved Administrations, on these very issues. Our considerations will, obviously, include possible interactions with the benefit cap.
Finally, Amendment 99C, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, would place a requirement on the face of the Bill for exemptions for a range of groups. These include groups that we will provide exemptions for through regulations, and others that we have already discussed during the course of our debates today. The amendment also includes an exemption for lone parents with a child under five. I have made it clear that the cap is intended to act as an incentive to work. I acknowledge that we currently do not require lone parents with children under seven to work, although we are seeking to reduce this to five, but that does not mean that we do not want to encourage them to find employment Indeed that is the very reason why we provide extra support through work-focused interviews.
Each of these amendments would undermine the fundamental principles underpinning the cap—that ultimately there has to be a limit to the amount of benefit that a household can receive and that work should always pay. I have listened carefully to the measured and detailed arguments put forward today and will take them into account when deciding on the final design of the cap. In the mean time, I urge the noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If I may say so, several questions remain unanswered by the Minister. First, if it were established that the cost and consequences of the cap outweighed the benefits savings, would he still support and seek to introduce the cap?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have done an estimate of the cost and benefits savings of the cap and we have looked clearly at the wider ramifications. The question is theoretical in practice. Clearly the message that we are trying to get over is a behavioural one much more than a cost-based one.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If that is the case, and the Minister has made that point on several occasions, what does the benefit cap provide that is not catered for within the new world of universal credit? I thought that universal credit was all about merging in and out of work benefits, simplicity, making sure that work always pays and changing people's attitudes to work. That is all that the universal credit is about. How does the cap sit with that and what does it produce in terms of policy outcomes in addition to what the universal credit produces?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the main difference is the simple message behind the cap: in the end, there is a limit to how much the state is prepared to support someone. That is a clear and simple message that can be readily understood in a way that, however simple universal credit is, that message would not be.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
One accepts that it is a simple message, but I am trying to understand the policy outcomes that the Government expect to achieve from that, which are different and in addition to the policy outcomes that they expect from universal credit.
Lord Freud
My Lords, what we are looking at now is a three-tier persuasion towards behavioural change. We have a conditionality regime; we have a universal credit that removes the concern of many welfare recipients that if they go to work they will be worse off; and we have a specific limit on how much benefit people can actually earn. That acts as a very precise work incentive, which is a long-term work incentive.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
Perhaps I could help the Minister. Surely the answer is that when the universal credit comes in fully it will deal with exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is making. That is why it is such a good idea, but it will take a long time and cost a lot of money so this is an interim arrangement. Is that not the position?
Lord Freud
I welcome my noble friend’s support because he has expressed the argument much better than I possibly could.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Is the Minister telling us that this is just an interim, transitional arrangement? I thought it was a permanent proposition.
Lord Freud
I return to the principle. As I understand it, this is a principle with which the Opposition agree: that there should be a limit on the amount of benefit a household can obtain. We have set that limit at the equivalent of £35,000 of earnings before tax and national insurance.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—of wherever he is of—would comment, if he were here, but he spelt out a very powerful argument of principle about entitlement. I have not heard the noble Lord address that argument and, in his absence, I would be very grateful if he could do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Basically, the noble Lord is constructing universal credit based on meeting several different objectives and many of us support this very strongly. However, he then artificially reduces the amount that some people will get under the very structure he has set out to meet the objectives he has outlined. It is that inconsistency of a deliberate cut to an entitlement, constructed by himself through universal credit, that we find unacceptable—so far it has not been explained to us—particularly when some of the consequences may cost us more.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the best piece of information I can provide the Committee on that question is that it is the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I think I am reduced to going back to the basic principle that there should be a limit and we have set that limit at the equivalent of £35,000. We are going round in circles slightly.
Lord Best
I thank the Minister for helpful and hopeful words about the transitional arrangements—the 26-week period of grace that was the subject of my amendment. On my other amendments relating to excluding sheltered and supported housing and temporary accommodation, I think the Minister was saying that that was still a work in progress, so my hopes are not dashed on that.
The overarching point that I have repeated a little here is that it is fair enough to have a limit, if the Government, for political or wider reasons, believe it to be necessary, but the limit affects people in very random ways. If you live in a nice three-bedroomed council house in Wales—as I described it earlier—costing £85 a week, you will have £415 left to spend on other things. If you live in a crummy flat in the East End of London at a rent of £325 a week, you will have an awful lot less to spend out of your £500 on all the other things you need. The cap hits people in a rather random way, which is why I have been arguing that we should take housing out of the equation and look at the other factors where the fairness principle might have greater applicability.
The underlying question I would leave with the Minister is: how are we going to manage the movement of people from a high-rent area of the country—they may be in privately rented property or have a number of children—to the cheaper areas of the country? We are looking at something like 200,000 people and 50,000 households. The Minister has suggested that some people will deploy savings, but savings will run out quite quickly if they are being dipped into at an average rate of £93, and for some people up to £150, per week. Such people do not have large amounts of savings and their savings will run out quite quickly. We know it is rather improbable that landlords will drop rents dramatically to cover these and other benefit caps.
In most cases we do not expect people to be going out to work—90 per cent of them are not required to go out to work—so although some might be coerced or incentivised to go out to work, the great majority of the 50,000 will still be in homes where they will not be able to stay because the gap between what they will receive to pay their rent and the rent itself is too wide. They will have to leave. Are we making contingency plans for this movement of a couple of hundred thousand people from the more expensive parts of the south-east and south-west to the inexpensive parts of the country? The move will be expensive.
I pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the cost of this cap. If people stay put and wait until they are evicted, an eviction will cost the housing association or social landlord something like £9,000. It is not just the legal costs but the fact that when the people move out you have to redecorate the house and you have a period of vacancy. All those things add up. We reckon that an eviction costs about £9,000, but if people go voluntarily and we can move in at the right time and do things in a more sensible way, the cost is about £2,500. However, on average you are looking at the landlord paying several thousand pounds when people move out.
There is also the question of providing education. When people arrive in new areas, their children will need to attend new schools. Social services departments will have to be notified if children are under the care of social workers. All these things will cost an awful lot of money, let alone just the simple transportation of people’s belongings, the cost of their rail fares and the costs involved in searching for a new home. All this is incredibly expensive. If we are to move 200,000 people because we feel, for whatever reason, that it is not fair for them to continue to occupy homes in expensive areas, are we putting in place the contingency plans that the local authorities in particular will need to get their heads around?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for that area of inquiry. We are looking to get early support for families in a number of ways well before the cap comes in. We are looking at a process whereby families on benefit face the same choices that low-income working families face. We are looking to achieve significant behavioural change through this measure. I assure the noble Lord that we are working hard with local authorities and other departments as well as with the devolved Administrations on the implementation of this measure.
Lord Wigley
I find it fairly disturbing that the Minister accepts that 200,000 people will be moving to places where low rents are charged—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to that—such as Wales. Is this a land clearance from central London to rural Wales?
Lord Freud
I wish to make it clear that I absolutely do not accept that figure. I have said that we are introducing a lot of measures in advance to make sure that that figure does not arise.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister develop a little further the argument as regards Amendment 99C, which concerns the lone parent with a child under the age of five? It seems to me that there needs to be more discussion about the whole question of whether people in those circumstances —this would apply to kinship carers as well—are being encouraged to seek work or to move back into work. It is often argued that they should not be working and that the important thing is that they look after their child under the age of five, or, if they are kinship carers, that they give up work in order to take on that responsibility, which may have suddenly arisen. It seems to me that we ought, therefore, to take much more seriously the possibility that they ought to be exempted because we do not, as a society or a Government, want them to be working.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hope I made clear my sympathy on the kinship carer point. I am looking at it in the round. On the lone parent point, I am afraid I am reduced to the underlying principle that there is a level of pay for people, which we have set at the equivalent of earnings of £35,000. Do not forget that, by definition, half the households in the country receive less than that amount because it is the median amount, and that is why we have fixed on that figure.
Lord Northbourne
I wonder whether the Minister can give some sort of comfort to those of us who feel, as the right reverend Prelate does, that raising children under five is a business very often for the mother or the father and that they are providing a much more important service to society and to the world, as well as to their child and themselves, if they concentrate on doing that instead of trying to do two things at once in order to keep up with the regulations in this proposed Bill?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I think I am reduced to making the mainstream point that the amount that such families can look to is the equivalent of what up to half the households in the country earn, which is £35,000.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, spelled out the challenges that some 200,000 people could face. The Minister may dispute the precise numbers, but he said that we are looking at a lot of measures to make sure that it is not 200,000 people. Can the Minister explain what types of measures are involved? What sort of measures are going to alleviate the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Best, spelled out?
Lord Freud
Clearly one of the most important areas of support that we can supply is helping people find work. One of the areas of support here is clearly Jobcentre Plus, and we are exploring that area pretty actively.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Are we seriously saying that, whether it is 90 per cent or two-thirds of the people affected by this who, under all the other rules and constructs that the Government have brought forward, are not required to get in to work, they are going to use this as a lever to force them in to work? Is that what they are saying?
Lord Freud
That is one of the areas of support. If we have about one-third of families who are subject to full conditionality and others subject to partial conditionality, by which we mean moving towards work over a period, a very substantial proportion of the group can be helped into the workplace.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Is the Minister really saying that it would be supporting, say, a lone mother who has a baby to, in effect, require her to take a job as the only way she can avoid the benefit cap or to move to an area where she does not know people and has not got the support network she needs for her baby? I cannot believe that that is what the Minister is saying.
Lord Freud
There is a combination there. Those are the choices that half of the low income working families need to take, although they are not even low income families—this is pretty high income. I am not specifying any more, but we will look at hard cases. I do not want to be “loaves and fishes” about hard cases either, which I know the noble Baroness would want to accuse me of, but those are the two areas relevant to that case study.
Lord Wigley
We seem to be getting into a bigger hole on this. If the idea is that 200,000 people, or whatever the lower figure is—I accept that the Minister has a figure and we would be very glad to know what it is—will move to areas of low rent in order to get work there, does the Minister not realise that the reason the rents are low there is that people do not have work?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are going round in circles. Noble Lords seem not to like this, although my understanding is that, as a principle, the Opposition approve of the benefit cap. There is a general level of support for it. I want to lay out the ground that working people with earnings of less than £35,000 already face these kinds of choices with regard to housing. Noble Lords seem to be arguing that people who are not working should be in a better position than those in work by protecting them from having to make this kind of choice. Bluntly, it was that kind of approach that has created or has been partially the cause of the high level of dependency that we have in this country.
I have, bluntly, said all that I can in this area. We can go round and round, but I am not in a position to offer very much more in the way of elaboration.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I just want to pick up on my noble friend Lady Lister's point. We know that most lone parents come out of a relationship: very often out of a marriage. These are not people who are regarded by others on the estate as shirkers who need to be driven—that sort of mentality. We could have a situation where, before they separated, the total household earned income was perhaps over £30,000 and there was some housing benefit because it was a three-bedroom property in an inner city area at a fairly high cost. He then leaves and she is left with three small children under the age of five in their existing home, which is rented. As a result, they are facing the benefit cap. How on earth do we think that any of these proposals under universal credit or the benefit cap could or should alter that behaviour, the judgments that they have to make and the possibilities open to them? All it can do is turf them out and send them up to Middlesbrough, as far as I can see.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I suspect that we have taken this as far as we can today, but I am sure that we will return to it on Report—perhaps we should already be thinking of booking an extra couple of days for that. I have a technical question for the Minister. As I understand it, before we get to universal credit, the variety of benefits that people have will be looked at. That will go into the calculation on one side. We will compare that with the earnings comparator and the difference will be withdrawn by way of reduction of housing benefit. Is that right? So that will be administered by local authorities.
What if people are in receipt of mortgage interest support or the housing benefit element is not necessarily sufficient to cover the shortfall? What happens with all the local authorities that have outsourced their housing benefit and council tax arrangements? There are a lot of them. Have they been engaged? Presumably, there are extracontractual costs because they will be required to do things in excess of current entitlements.
On universal credit, is it likely that the withdrawal will be in respect of only the housing component of the credit or will the broader range of support that is in universal credit be subject to the clawback?
Lord Freud
No; we have made it clear that it would apply to housing benefit and not to other benefits. The cap will not have full coverage until universal credit comes in.
Baroness Drake
I did not get the chance to mention this when other issues were being discussed. The Minister gave a blunt message on what had caused benefit dependency. But the Bill is also setting the welfare system for people who have no record of benefit dependency. They are hard-working people who from time to time experience difficulty. We know that the Government are considering greater flexibility in the labour market. The newspapers have rumours about making group redundancies easier. Large-scale redundancies are much easier because it cuts the amount of consultation and makes it easier to dismiss people. I should like to push the Minister on the point that, notwithstanding the Government’s position on a cap, the transition to that cap needs to be considered so that the principle of the cap is not broken when hard-working people who do not have a record of benefit dependency are trying to engage in the labour market.
Lord Freud
I fully accept that point, as I have already indicated. I shall bear that point very much in mind as we go through the next stages.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I deliberately did not intervene on the industrial injuries benefit interval because I did not want to interrupt the flow of the debate. The Minister will not be surprised that I was disappointed by his response to my amendment. This is about signals. I was very moved by the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the distinction that people make between hard-working people and so-called scroungers. My amendment concerns working people—of course, not all are still working—who were injured in the course of their working lives. I do not think it is adequate just to say that it is different from disability living allowance.
To pick up a point made by my noble friend, Lady Drake, if the Government are trying to get over messages, they must be seen to support those who have spent their lives working, and even those who have been injured in the course of that work. I ask him whether he would be prepared to reconsider. I am not talking about the amounts of money, as we all know that in this area they are very small, but there is an important point of principle here and this is an opportunity for the Government to reinforce their message.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will not make any promises on this but I will have another look at it. That is the weakest of possible promises. In fact, I am trying to say that it is not a promise at all. The signal I am giving is that I will have another look at it, but that is no guarantee of anything happening.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this long and detailed debate on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with the discussions. I take a certain amount of hope from some of the things that he has said about taking account of the arguments, which we have shared, and about some specifics, such as references to attendance allowance, to childcare costs, repeatedly, and to free school meals, that there will be exemptions which we can see in those areas. I am also encouraged by the beginnings of a discussion on the issue of carers, in particular kinship carers. I very much hope that that can be taken further in our debates. I am rather less encouraged by the comments on housing benefit, but I hope that there can be ways in which, at least in terms of transitional arrangements, we can move forward on those as well.
The area in which I am least encouraged relates to the amendment on child benefit. We still have not got a real answer to the question of why child benefit counts on one side of the scales and not on the other, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has made several times in this debate. We can only use the figure £35,000 on the basis that we are not comparing like with like, otherwise it does not make sense as a figure to be used. That seems to me to be regrettable and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to have another look at this and to discuss just what the place of child benefit—perhaps the key benefit—is within the whole of our society, over many years, in terms of the cap. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“( ) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations under section 93 may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Freud
“(a) to determine that payment related to the provision of support of children and for childcare costs should be paid to the main carer of those children,(b) to determine that payment related to the provision of support for housing costs should be paid to a person liable for payment of those housing costs, so far as those costs are not paid directly to the landlord, or(c) to determine that, where applicable, payments of universal credit shall be split between claimants in order to ensure payment is made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b).”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I think that the Minister was hoping for a Division during the previous discussion like I have never seen a Minister hope for a Division, but he was not saved by the Bell.
We have two amendments in this group. Amendment 102ZA would allow for the person mainly responsible for meeting particular costs to receive that part of universal credit intended to meet such expenses. It would enable the main carer, who is primarily dealing with the costs of children and childcare, to receive the elements of support related to this, and the person responsible for meeting housing costs to receive the part of universal credit that relates to housing costs. Amendment 102B would allow for the elements of universal credit to be calculated in such a way that facilitated this aim, tapering away each element individually to enable a fair proportion of each component of universal credit to be paid to the relevant member of the household. The amendment is therefore the corollary of the earlier amendment, in that if the payment can be split between two recipients, it should also be withdrawn, whether for reason of the taper or of any benefit cap, in the same proportion, rather than be taken either from the childcare element or the housing element.
Amendment 102ZA seeks to mitigate the risks associated with paying all universal credit to one person, in particular the risks for women if the current proposal goes ahead unamended. Concerns have been raised by a wide range of organisations, including the Women’s Budget Group, Oxfam, Platform 51, the Child Poverty Action Group, Women’s Aid, Daycare Trust and the Children’s Society.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, my Amendment 102A is in this group and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has used most of the arguments that I was going to use. I will merely stress the importance of why the payment would be much better paid to the main carer who, in most of these instances, is the mother. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that the payment is usually her only source of income. Equally, we know from experience that it will be spent on food and resources such as that which will keep the household together. When there is violence in a family, the payment would also allow a mother to have enough personal income, albeit family income, to seek help from a refuge and so on. I hope that the Minister will think hard about making the payment available, regardless of the circumstances, to just one person. As we have heard, in cases where the payment goes to one person, something like 80 per cent of applications are made by the male in the household.
On the inequalities that exist in some households and the importance of encouraging women who will, under these circumstances, be fighting for their children as well as for themselves and for the opportunity to lead a decent life, I hope that the Government will think carefully about this and will not continue with the approach of just one member of the household being able to apply for the payment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support the two overlapping amendments, Amendments 102ZA and 102A, as well as Amendment 102B, to which I will not speak specifically. Clause 97 is the Groundhog Day clause. Back in the 1980s I helped to lead a charge against the then Conservative Government’s attempt to pay the family credit through the wage packet. I then helped to persuade the previous Government of the error of their ways when they proposed to pay working families’ tax credit through the wage packet. I was able to do this using JRF-funded research that I had just carried out with Jacky Goode and Clare Callender into the distribution of income within families in receipt of benefits. It demonstrated the importance of paying benefits for children to the mother, who was in all those families the parent with the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children. Indeed, once out-of-work families had migrated to child tax credit, we would have achieved that for out-of-work families as well as those in work.
It was with a heavy heart that I realised we were back to square one and having to persuade the Government of the day why it is so important to pay money for children direct to the parent who has the main responsibility for the day-to-day care of the children and for day-to-day budgeting. But this time the stakes are that much higher because so much is being wrapped up in the universal credit, particularly because, as Amendment 102ZA refers to, payment for housing costs are also at issue. We need to bear in mind here our earlier debate about the hazards of payment of rent as part of the universal credit.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Clause 97 provides that in the case of a benefit awarded jointly, such as universal credit, it can be paid to whichever person in a household they themselves nominate, or for all or part of it to be paid to either person regardless of their nomination.
Amendment 102A seeks to ensure that the child and childcare elements of universal credit are paid to the responsible carer within a household. Amendment 102ZA also seeks to ensure that the child and childcare elements of universal credit are paid to the responsible carer and that the housing element is paid to the partner responsible for housing costs.
Under universal credit, couples living in the same household will make a joint claim for the benefit payment. It is not correct to think of, as has been said, a man claiming for the household. In couples, both will be claimants, which is an important change under universal credit. We have outlined our intention to make universal credit a single payment to a household. This decision will ensure that the household can see clearly the effect of their decisions about work on total household income and ensure that claimants can take responsibility for budgeting. Households budget and organise their finances in different ways, so we want to enable couples to decide between them where their payment should go. It is not for the Government to dictate how a family arranges its finances.
We recognise, however, that there may be cases which require alternative arrangements and the Government intend to retain powers to split payments to couples as a safeguard. We are still considering the circumstances in which we would split payments and further details will be included in regulations. Examples of when the power is used could include where there is proven abuse of the money by one partner or where children are deemed to be at risk.
On the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Howe, on domestic violence, where there is abuse or children at risk we will have the power to split payments and we are talking to stakeholders about how this should work in practice. Let me try to be clear: when it becomes apparent that one partner is not managing money properly, we have the ability to switch the money entirely to the other partner, which is the appropriate safeguard.
The Government will also have the power to pay the housing element of universal credit direct to the landlord in exceptional cases. We are currently considering with stakeholders the specific circumstances in which this power could be exercised and again will set out further detail in regulations.
Lord Freud
However, in circumstances where a universal credit award is split, neither party will receive specific elements such as housing or childcare. They will each receive a proportion of the total award and decide for themselves how best to use the money. This adheres to one of the key principles of universal credit, which is that claimants must be responsible for their own budgeting.
In answer to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, contributory benefits will continue to be individualised entitlements, but we are looking at options for payment of benefit in cases where a household has entitlement to both contributory benefits and universal credit. It may be simpler to make a single payment of universal credit in that situation, but that is just one possible option and we have the power to cover different approaches.
We are, however, committed to ensuring that people can access support to manage their payment and help them budget effectively. This is likely to include access to nationally available advice and guidance, locally delivered targeted support and improved access to budgeting products.
Budgeting products, I know, mystify the noble Baroness. It is easy to think about universal credit and such areas in slightly Victorian terms. When we look at what universal credit is and the support mechanisms that are under it and wrap it up, we see that there are a huge number of options. I am actively looking at those and interested in encouraging access to what are popularly known as jam jar accounts. Those accounts allow partners to allocate part of their payment for specific purposes, particularly the ones that need to go to utility bills and rent. Such accounts incorporate direct debits and such things. There is a lot of work to be done in this area and I hope to be able to share that with noble Lords as we develop it.
We are talking to a lot of people about this. As well as to the banks and the financial services industry, we are talking to local authorities, housing associations and the voluntary sector about how to deliver this. I may have some more information about how this will start to work. I hope that it will break us out of what could be a 20-year debate into the opportunities offered by modern technology. I hope that I will be able to keep noble Lords updated.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Will the Minister be able to update us before we get to this on Report? I am sure that we will want to return to this on Report.
Lord Freud
I would like to. I have people working on this and we are beginning to think quite differently about how these issues can be addressed—what is universal credit, what is a banking product and where is the join. We must not forget that, at a simple level, a universal credit is a payment stream with budgeting advances. It does not take a lot of imagination to see how it could join up with a more formal banking product and we have to work out where the line is drawn.
Turning to Amendment 102B, I appreciate that the intention behind it is to demonstrate that the taper can be applied to individual elements within the overall universal credit award so that payment of—
Lord Freud
My Lords, I was just tidying up on Amendment 102B. We are not looking to put the taper on individual elements, and I have described why we do not want to go down that route because it is quite different from what universal credit is. With these explanations, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister explain one thing to the Committee? He has explained why he wants to make clear to a claimant household exactly what income is coming to it as a result of universal credit and the different components to help them understand that. Why does he then have a problem with separating payments as opposed to assessments?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To save the Minister jumping up and down, I asked him a specific question about monitoring the impact on the distribution of income within households which I would be grateful if he would answer. I do not think he answered it, although the reply has been so fragmented because of the Divisions that we may have missed it.
Lord Freud
On the first question, I think we should look at this rather differently. It is one payment to the household. On whether we can look at how the household can do different things with that payment, I am very happy to look at all the budgeting supporting mechanisms. I am actively looking at them, and I hope I will get some more information on that.
To be honest, I have not got on the top of my head the detail on the monitoring. We will be looking at it very closely when that comes in and will be devising a structure to do that. As noble Lords know, we are planning to have a very substantial research exercise around universal credit, mainly because it is an almost unique research laboratory opportunity in that we can capture in one place all the different behaviours. I am looking very closely at how we can get world-class research behind many aspects of the universal credit.
Baroness Sherlock
This is the last time I shall intervene, I promise—and that is a strong promise rather than a weak one, I can assure the Minister. I understood him to be saying that the state does not want to intervene more than it has to in the financial affairs of families, and I can see that and agree with it, but if putting different amounts of money into different subsets of a bank account is going to encourage people to budget, somebody is still going to have to go through the process of working out which elements of the total award relate to different elements—children, rent et cetera—and deal with the complicated bit of that, which is understanding how tapers apply. When the Minister thinks about this again, will he consider whether the assessment can be for a household but when you get the answer, you simply split the amount and give it in two different directions? Is that not much easier than the Minister getting embroiled with the FSA or the FCA and complicated financial services market products?
Lord Freud
I am thinking about this area. I do not think I am thinking in quite the same way as the noble Baroness, but I am looking at it and hope I will be able to have a vigorous conversation with her on where that comes in at a later stage.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for his responses, although I may not like their content. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Lister and Lady Sherlock, for their support on these issues, which are very real. My guess is that there will come a time when the Government will have to revisit this when they see the results.
The words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, ought to be resonating around. She spoke about vulnerable women and inequalities within households. She said:
“These are women fighting for their children”.
We are talking about people without great access to income needing to feed their children. Very often, it will be a mother living with a man who is not the father of those children. This is great—I am a stepmum and well used to these relationships. But we have to understand that we are very often talking about not the idealised couple but the couple struggling to get their relationship together. Not to enable the woman as a right to have access to that, I find a little strange.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I imagine that this will be extremely brief. This is a genuinely probing amendment on a point of detail. Clause 98 covers payments on account and under the Bill there are three different legs under which those payments can be made. The first mirrors the existing provision of SSAA 1992. The second provides for payment to be made where a claimant is in need. Examples of how it might be applied apparently include where benefit has been claimed but the first pay day has not yet been reached. Regulations will provide the detail of the test of need. New Section 5(1)(r)(iii) enables the Secretary of State to make a payment on account where, again, subject to criteria set out in regulations, it can reasonably be expected to be recovered. I think such payments will replace the existing social fund budgeting loans. However, part of what this clause does is to repeal Section 22 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, a provision which is not yet commenced.
The thrust of the question really springs from a sentence in the Explanatory Notes which says in respect of that provision that, had it been commenced,
“it would have extended the range of situations in which a payment on account could be made beyond the existing section 5(1)(r) … It would have extended making payments on account to situations similar to those that will be covered by new section 5(1)(r)(ii)”.
My question is: is there anything that Section 22 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 would have permitted in terms of payments on account which are not now facilitated by those three legs in Clause 98? I beg to move.
Lord Freud
In the interests of time, I can give an assurance that there is nothing extra to worry about.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Nothing extra to worry about is good enough to worry about with this Bill. I am grateful for that. Perhaps it can be dealt with in correspondence. It was a genuine inquiry about whether that swapping of the provisions precluded something which would have been allowed. I accept the noble Lord’s assurance on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
“Benefits payments to prisoners
(1) Regulations shall provide that a person undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody who, at the time that imprisonment or custody commences, is in receipt of any of the qualifying benefits, shall be assessed, during his time in imprisonment or custody, for eligibility for those benefits at the time of his release from imprisonment or custody.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the qualifying benefits are—
(a) universal credit;(b) jobseeker’s allowance;(c) employment and support allowance;(d) income support;(e) personal independence payment, to the extent provided for in regulations made under section 84; and(f) any other benefits provided for in regulations made under this section.(3) Regulations made under this section shall provide that the assessment required under subsection (1) shall commence as soon as a person is received into imprisonment or custody.
(4) Regulations shall in particular provide that a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall record, at the time a person is received into imprisonment or custody, details of any qualifying benefits which are in payment at that time, together with any personal information needed to establish the person’s identity, including but not limited to their national insurance number.
(5) An assessment of eligibility under subsection (1) shall be completed in such time as to ensure that the person assessed receives payment of any benefits for which he is assessed as being eligible no later than one week after his release from imprisonment or custody.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State and shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, this amendment has its genesis as long ago as 1996. As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, I found that, at the end of their sentence, prisoners were released with a discharge grant of £46 or, if they had no address to go to, £92. The numbers claiming £92 went down when home detention curfew or tagging was introduced because, in order to qualify, they had to give an address. They were then required to go to their local jobcentre and sign on for whatever benefits they were entitled to, so having to live on their discharge grant until those came through, which could take up to three weeks and sometimes longer. I ask Members of the Grand Committee how they would cope if they were a single parent with dependent children having to live on £46 for three weeks, probably having lost their accommodation thanks to the rule brought in by Mr Peter Lilley in 1995 whereby council accommodation would be forfeited after 13 weeks of absence and their possessions removed. That is not to excuse those who break the law, but it offers an explanation for the appalling high reoffending rate among recently released offenders.
When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, and on several occasions since then, including in your Lordships’ House, I have asked why benefit claims could not be processed while someone is in prison so that on release they do not receive a grant but the first of future regular payments. As very many prisoners are receiving some form of benefit before they go into prison, it should not be beyond the wit of man to suspend those payments during the period of imprisonment and resume them on release. However, every sort of reason has been put forward about why that is impossible, which I put down to lack of will power: the prisons from which they are released may not be in the same geographical area where they live and, therefore, not in the area where their nearest jobcentre is; there are no Jobcentre Plus employees in prisons who could process the claims; or the prison into which they were received and which suspended their payment may not be the same one from which they are released. I think all this is baloney and that the Government, by not grasping the nettle, are contributing to the reoffending rate.
My amendment is designed to put an end to that nonsense by regulating that individual benefit claims are processed during a person’s imprisonment so that the discharge grant becomes a thing of the past, except for those who do not qualify for benefit. There are other spin-offs to this process that can only help the conduct of imprisonment, because an individual’s national insurance number is a unique identification weapon armed with which there is no reason why one cannot pass information regarding individual claims around the system. Unique national insurance numbers, without which benefit claims cannot be made, will also help to prevent identity fraud, because pretending to be someone else will deny provision.
My amendment specifically mentions those who were in receipt of benefits at the time of their reception into custody, but I shall amend it at a later stage to include the assessment of all people inside and the initial assessment of those whose entitlement is discovered only when they are in custody. What I am proposing is in fact in line with something that has already been set in train regarding the work programme. The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 August that the Government intended to mandate prison leavers to the programme immediately on release from prison, with national implementation for jobseeker’s allowance claimants from March 2012, and to work with the Ministry of Justice on a pilot integration of reoffending outcomes into work programmes.
To enable that to happen, Jobcentre Plus advisers will process jobseeker’s allowance claims in prison—although for some extraordinary reason it is said that discussions with claimants will be voluntary and not mandatory. They will then make a record of all prison leavers that will be retained for 13 weeks from the date on which they leave custody. If a claim for jobseeker’s allowance is made during that time, the prison leaver will be referred to the work programme at the point of claim. To a layman, this all seems convoluted and bureaucratic. If the Department for Work and Pensions really is fully committed to supporting the rehabilitation of offenders, why can officials not sit down with those from the Ministry of Justice and work out a system that applies to every single prison leaver, not just those who are in the market for the work programme or jobseeker’s allowance?
The reason for proposed subsection (3) in my amendment is that, all too often, resettlement essentials in prison are left until the very end of a sentence, in which case it may be too late to process benefit claims. However, if processing is started immediately so that a prisoner’s status on release is well known in advance, that will be avoided. This applies to the work programme as much as to the universal benefit. Of course there will be problems with those serving short sentences but, as I have suggested, suspension and resumption rather than initiation may well be the required process.
Bearing in mind the unnecessary reoffending and misery that present procedures have caused for too long, I have corresponded with both the Ministry of Justice and the Minister over this amendment, being amazed that successive Governments should not have done something to rectify this over the years—particularly this Government, in view of what they currently have in hand at both the MoJ and the DWP. I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my letters but, with respect, I suggest that in drafting his answer his officials may not have made the connections that I have tried to describe. I therefore ask him to reconsider his written refusal to support my amendment, dated 26 October, and meet me to discuss further action before Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I have not prepared any comments on this amendment, but it seems to me to be of enormous importance. I cannot imagine that the Minister would not wish to support it.
One very obvious proposal would be for every prison to work out the release rate of their prisoners and to determine how many hours per week of a Jobcentre Plus person they need in the prison to process all these prisoners in order that they are paid their full benefit entitlement before, I suggest, they go out of the door or within the first week.
It is a fact that a very large number of prisoners reoffend within that very early period following release, which seems almost inevitable. What else are these people supposed to do? I therefore hope that the Minister will indeed meet my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham to consider how to do it. It has surely to be done; it is a matter of how best to do it—whether to have people in the prison doing this work to overcome the problems of people moving from one area to another and even while they are in prison. I can see that that is a problem for individual jobcentres, but, one way or another, I hope that this can be resolved.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, briefly, I also support what my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said. It clearly makes sense and is essential for the rehabilitation of offenders to be begun and appropriately carried through. Above all, the idea of applying it to all people, not necessarily just those who would have qualified in the first instance, must be a sensible way forward. I would have thought that the business of suspension and resumption would apply to very short sentences. I, too, very much hope that the Minister will rethink and at least have these conversations for the long-term benefit of what we are all trying to achieve—less offending in the first place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a very powerful case, particularly for those serving short sentences. One can be reasonably confident that the benefit entitlement with which they enter prison will remain the same when they leave it. Could the Minister help me by fleshing out his thoughts a little further on a situation in which you cannot know in the same way, under universal credit, whether someone leaving prison is going into the household of a former partner with children or whether that household has broken up while he has been in prison? What question marks will there be? It was much easier to arrange when we were dealing with a single benefit, such as jobseeker’s allowance, which was not particularly related to the network of other benefits that a household might receive. It would clearly work for those serving short sentences or for somebody who was single throughout their sentence and expected to come out single. Could the Minister help us on how he would handle a situation in which a person was going back into a household with children, where there might be rent to be paid from his universal credit entitlement? He might go back expecting that payment to be made to him. Perhaps the Minister could help us on that.
Lord Ramsbotham
Thank you very much. I am glad that the noble Baroness raised that point. It reinforces something that many of us have been saying for a long time: the prison system of this country is not organised to help itself. The trouble is that prisoners are scattered all over the country by an incoherent national population management structure, as opposed to—as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, after the Strangeways riots in 1990—prisons being grouped into what he called community clusters or regional clusters so that nobody ever left their region. Therefore, all the resources of the region could be applied to the rehabilitation of their own offenders. It will be very difficult for the Ministry of Justice to resolve the questions that noble Lords have asked under the present distributed system. If prisons were regionalised and the prison authorities properly hooked into all the authorities in the region, it would be much easier to liaise with the regional authorities responsible for finding out that sort of detail. That should of course be part of the whole rehabilitation process anyway. The questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, posed are absolutely ones that should be referred to the Ministry of Justice. We should ask, “How will you ensure that these are answered, because they must be?”.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, my role in this Grand Committee has been very much in the light of that line from Milton:
“They also serve who only stand and wait”.
The occasions on which I have spoken have been unexpected to the Committee and have surprised even me. I am indebted to my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for having moved his amendment. He will not remember, but in my last month as a Member of Parliament, I had just such a case. It was the first time that I had ever had one. A man had been in prison for drug-related offences and had just come out. At my surgery, he described to me the nature of the problem with which he was then confronted. I cannot remember whether we spoke on the telephone or face-to-face, but I recall saying to the noble Lord—of course I knew his background—that we had known each other a long time and even played cricket together, sometimes on the same side and sometimes against each other. I laid out the case and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said in despair, “You are describing what happens so often, so often, so often”. I am only sorry that by virtue of leaving the House of Commons at that moment, I never heard how the story ended. I speak now because it is quite clear not only from today but from my earlier experience that there is a real problem that we must deal with.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend and also to ask whether, if there is some difficulty with achieving this as a one-off from the start, one might start by focusing on women in custody. They are more likely than men to have dependants. I see also the problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of incarcerating so many women in this country is that once they are taken into custody, the family breaks down. If the Minister can go only part of the way in this context, I hope that he might think in particular about the issue of women in custody.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as I have often said, my education on these issues has grown thanks to the Minister, but I am afraid that today he was trumped by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, from whom I learned that one may use the word “baloney” in your Lordships’ Committee. Given his reputation, I am slightly hesitant about speaking on this, but I will add a few comments. I must say that the last time that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, told us his story about Degsy in Liverpool, we got significant movement from the Minister, so I hope that his charm will work equally well today.
The amendment seeks to ensure that people who are coming out of custody get swift access to the benefits to which they are entitled. The Prison Reform Trust report, Time is Money, stated that eight out of 10 former prisoners claim benefits. Obviously, delays in accessing them can lead to enormous financial hardship and stress. It can also increase the risk of reoffending. We also know—although I am sure not as well as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—how many people in prison have multiple needs.
The transitions of entering or leaving prison, or becoming homeless, often lead to both personal and financial crisis. We think of coming out of prison as very positive, but it can be traumatic for people with multiple needs. With no financial contingencies, these people usually rely on a benefit system that they experience as complicated, slow and unhelpful. In extremis, some return to crime, as that was their proven source of income. The report found many problems experienced by people who were just out of prison, such as: delays of up to four weeks before the first payments, with little or no explanation; problems with claims that had been started before they had gone to prison, and which had to be resolved before any new claims could be made; problems of claims being delayed because they had no fixed address; disputes over prison admission and release dates, where timings can be crucial; and problems caused by not closing down a claim on entry to prison, resulting in a fraud investigation and the suspension of the new claim. Many of the people we are talking about have multiple needs. About one-third of people in prison do not have a bank account, which makes the payment of a deposit for housing or to cover early expenses even harder to organise on release.
As the noble Lord said, help beforehand with immediate access to benefits is key if the person is not to feel the need to return to using other people's money simply to survive. It emphasises the point that has been made about the need for help and advice while in prison. This will be particularly the case over the next few years, when the whole benefit system will have changed; the one that they knew on going into prison will be quite different from the UC world when they come out. We also know that in one survey that about half the prisoners had debts that awaited clearance on release, and one in three owed money for housing. That gets them started on a real problem of owing money on existing housing. It also touches on an earlier amendment about splitting a joint universal credit if they return to a partner with children and then want to take over responsibility for the housing amount. There could be some difficult readjustment or re-entry. When publishing a book about returning from the war in 1945—I remind noble Lords on that side of the table that we had a really good election result that year—it was interesting that it was difficult for stable, loving marriages when a man came home from the war and wanted to take over financial responsibility. So these things affect whole swathes of people. It is a stressful time, and getting benefits lined up early is really important.
The Centre for Social Justice, which is often mentioned in this Committee, has also highlighted the problems faced by people leaving custody. Its report, Locked Up Potential, recognised that delays in processing benefits meant that many people who are discharged have no source of income when it is most urgently needed. I am sure that the Minister is very familiar with its recommendations, which are that:
“To bridge the finance gap, with the objective of reducing the resulting crime which it can fuel, we recommend that all prison employment and benefits advisors be required by the Department of Work and Pensions … and the MOJ to initiate core benefit applications at least three weeks prior to a prisoner’s nominated release date”.
It would be helpful if the Minister could let us know what discussions the DWP has had with the MoJ about responding to the recommendations in that report and ensuring that those leaving prison are not left with gaps and delays in getting the financial support that may be essential to them in starting a new life outside custody.
We know that the coalition Government have decided not to continue with the progress to work scheme, which provided support to ex-offenders. That support will be provided through the work programme, although as we have heard there will be some difficulties there. It would be useful to know what decisions have been made about access to work programmes for ex-offenders and whether they will be fast-tracked to receive this support. If not, what alternative arrangements are being put in place to ensure that they receive the tailored employment support that they might need? While I hope that the Minister will respond to discussions for talk, I also hope that it will not just be talking the talk but walking the walk and that we will get some progress.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord’s remarks and acknowledge his expertise on penal policy. I can also say that I am utterly delighted to meet the noble Lord. I can say now that I do not accept his amendments and I hope that what I describe of what we are actually doing will leave him joyful, both after what I describe here and after our meeting, which will happen as soon as we can. I believe that the route that we are going down will prove more beneficial in the long run than what he has suggested in this amendment, which is more expensive and resource-intensive, in terms of in-prison assessments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Regarding the payment on account, I do not know whether it is exactly the way to go forward, but I think it is the only way you can make this work. However, on the assumption that most people coming out of prison may well be under the age of 35, will the Minister confirm that he expects the payment to include at least the HB single room rent, as well as the jobseeker’s allowance? At £67, the jobseeker’s allowance will not go very far in paying rent. Therefore, the payment on account benefit of UC would include a putative amount for both elements—both what we know is called JSA and what we currently call housing allowance.
Lord Freud
My Lords, there are two things here: budgeting advances and a process of how we move people on to the system that we are looking at. I cannot set that out in detail, but we will be doing so in regulations as we elaborate that system.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I also thank those who have contributed to the debate. I have to admit that I am encouraged. However, there is a “but”, and my “buts” are always about the maintenance of momentum. The noble Lord mentioned those on the work programme, but what about those who are not and what about those who are falling between the cracks? When we meet, I should like to explore the question of all the people whom one finds in prison, such as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, quoted, who fall through the cracks and do not get picked up.
I take issue with the business of leaving things until late. The Prison Service is notoriously bad at leaving things until they are late, and it is the same with housing and debt management. The sooner you can start work on it, the better. It will not be expensive because it can be done by the people in prison, provided that they are brought into the process. It should not be left.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s offer of a meeting. I look forward to it because there is obviously more to discuss, and indeed I shall have one or two examples of that in my Amendment 107, which we shall come to later. That amendment is connected with what happens to people when they come out of prison. In the mean time, in the spirit of the Minister’s reply, and with my thanks for its comprehensive nature, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meacher
I think I slightly missed my cue. I apologise. I rise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who gives her apologies to the Committee. My noble friend is unable to be with us due to a commitment in Birmingham today and she asked me to speak. I rise to give notice of our intention to oppose the question that Clause 99 stand part of the Bill. I must express my gratitude to Sue Royston of the CAB service for her help with this contribution.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove Clause 99, which requires claimants to apply for a revision before they can appeal. This clause would mean a mandatory extra step in the system, which complicates the process for claimants. The extra step has a strict legal time limit within which the application must be made. This inevitably means that some vulnerable people will lose their right to appeal, having failed to submit their application in good time. It will create extra work and extra expense. The reconsideration process is already in place anyway when someone appeals; the DWP just needs to use it more effectively.
What does the proposal mean for the process of challenging a decision? At present someone who receives a decision they disagree with has a month to challenge it. They can either ask the decision-maker to reconsider the decision or they can put in for an appeal. If they appeal, the DWP still has a duty to reconsider the decision. If, after reconsideration, the decision is unchanged, the appeal is passed on to the Tribunals Service automatically. This means that at the start of the process claimants have only one legal time limit to meet if they appeal. If the new proposal set out in Clause 99 is passed, someone who receives a decision they disagree with will have a month from the date of the decision to ask for a reconsideration. Then, when the claimant receives the result of that, they will have only a month from the date of the new decision to submit their appeal. Both of these deadlines will be strict legal time limits and a late reconsideration or appeal will be accepted only if good cause is proven. We all know that good cause is a very tough hurdle and very much a matter of discretion. One can never be sure that the decision is fair.
Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government regard this change as necessary. In the equality impact assessment published in October, one reason given by the DWP for this proposal is:
“We wish to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible, disputes between claimants and the relevant decision making body regarding social security, child support and certain other decisions are resolved through internal processes”.
It makes no sense to suggest that this proposal is to ensure that decisions are resolved through internal processes. The process for doing this is already in place. If a claimant wants to challenge a DLA decision and appeals, time is given to collect evidence and a proper reconsideration of the evidence is made. Where a good cause is presented, the decision is frequently overturned. The taxpayer is saved the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of that appeal.
However, in ESA cases, until recently it was very common to send in an appeal one day and get back the reconsideration by return of post refusing to change the decision—the appeal had been forwarded to the Tribunals Service before any evidence could be collected. The reconsideration process has recently improved. However, the improvements are patchy. One CAB in the south-west reported that it had started to see an improvement in the reconsideration process, but ever since the reassessment process started in earnest, it appears that the decision-makers have been overwhelmed and in not a single case where the CAB has helped claimants appeal has the decision been overturned on reconsideration, and yet at tribunal the CAB service has a success rate of 90 per cent. Clearly something is going rather badly wrong.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has made a powerful argument about why the current provisions cannot be properly implemented and why they are not sufficient. In welcoming the Minister to his first slot at the Dispatch Box today, I ask him whether it is possible, perhaps not today, although today if he can, for him to set out for us each of the benefits that would be affected by these proposed changes, what the current arrangements for those benefits are in respect of appeal provisions, what happens to payment or otherwise in the interim and the extent to which that would change under these new provisions? That would be important in helping us to understand what might happen in practice.
I may have missed the point when the noble Baroness was speaking on this issue, but is there a time limit for the DWP to respond to a reconsideration request? There are time limits which flow from it, but under these new arrangements, what causes the DWP to have to respond quickly or within a fixed timetable, particularly if for some of the benefits the dispute is about whether a benefit should be in payment at all? It might be an argument about the capital rules for universal credit or about the category that somebody is in. If it is ESA, I think the claimant gets the assessment rate until the matter has been settled. If the noble Lord is able to clarify that, it would particularly help us understand the import of these proposed changes.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has eloquently explained her concerns and those of her noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who cannot be with us today, about Clause 99. Let me try to address them.
I assure your Lordships that the time limits for claimants wishing to request a revision, or make an appeal, in relation to most social security benefits are not changing. What is changing is that claimants will need to ask for the decision to be looked at again before they can appeal. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is in everyone’s interests for disputed decisions to be resolved at the pre-appeal stage wherever possible. Previous figures have indicated that approximately 65 per cent of cases overturned historically were a result of additional evidence being provided that was not available to the decision-maker.
While the claimant will be required to apply for reconsideration within one month of being notified of a decision, the process for making the request is informal. It does not require the claimant to supply a substantial submission and can be done by telephone, face to face or in writing, so claimants should not be subject to additional expense.
The purpose of Clause 99 is to allow DWP to focus on revision rather than responding to appeals, enabling more disputes to be resolved at an earlier stage. Claimants will still be able to ask for a written explanation of the decision and, where they do, the one-month time limit for applying for reconsideration will be extended. In the event that a claimant fails to request a reconsideration on time, the deadline can be extended where there are special circumstances—for example, a hospital admission —which make it impracticable for the claimant to meet the deadline. I assure the noble Baroness that when a request for reconsideration is made beyond the one-month deadline, no formal submission of reasons will be required. They can be supplied by telephone, allowing a decision-maker to consider whether they meet the criteria for an extension of the deadline.
This clause does not change which decisions carry appeal rights; it will simply require claimants to go through the internal reconsideration process first. The purpose of this is to ensure that the decision-making and appeal process is both fair and proportionate.
Although reconsideration is already practised in DWP, there is no legislative requirement for it to be carried out when an appeal is made. Clause 99 will introduce this requirement. Currently, decisions are routinely reconsidered on appeal, so the reconsideration process takes place after the claimant has already decided to appeal to the tribunal.
Under the new arrangements, DWP will use direct contact with the claimant to gather additional evidence relevant to the decision and will provide an explanation of the outcome of the reconsideration. The process will allow a claimant’s decision to appeal to be informed by whether reconsideration had provided them with a clear justification for the original decision, and a clear explanation of it.
Some parts of DWP have already introduced a more robust and independent reconsideration process. However, claimants may often have already made a formal appeal before this process begins. As the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, under Clause 99, where a decision is overturned upon reconsideration, this will save the taxpayer the cost of an appeal and the claimant the stress of appealing.
The noble Baroness makes the point that, under the current process, no one can get to a tribunal without confirming their intent to carry on. However, if a claimant does not respond to the TAS1, the appeal does not simply stop. The tribunal will still be required to make a decision to strike out the appeal.
Currently, the claimant has 14 days to respond to a TAS1, which is sent along with the DWP response to the appeal and often the reconsideration outcome. Unless the claimant appeals early, which is the issue that we are trying to resolve, this gives the claimant only a short time to consider this information and make an informed decision on whether to proceed with their appeal or to withdraw.
Clause 99 will allow the claimant to make an informed decision about whether to appeal, having passed through a less formal process. There is currently no time limit for the DWP to complete the reconsideration process, nor is one proposed, but it is important to the DWP that each stage of the decision-making and appeals process is carried out within acceptable timescales and does not result in unreasonable delays for claimants. The department is considering carefully how best to monitor and evaluate this in future.
The noble Baroness expressed a concern that claimants will not qualify for payment of ESA pending reconsideration. No appellants should be left without support, since other benefits such as JSA may be available. No decisions have yet been made to change ESA. The main focus of the DWP is to make the correct decision, based on all the available evidence, at the earliest point. Clause 99 will also help claimants distinguish between revision and appeal. The process will be clearly explained via decision letters, leaflets and through direct contact with claimants.
The noble Baroness referred to costs. There will, of course, be costs, particularly relating to IT changes, to implement this clause. The DWP expects to meet these within its spending review settlement. Furthermore, savings are expected to be made in both the DWP and the Ministry of Justice via a reduction in appeals.
I do not think that I have responded in detail—
Baroness Meacher
It seems to me that this is a tricky subject area. I am struggling as regards what benefit there might be in introducing Clause 99. It seems to me that one is shifting the responsibility from the DWP to get on and undertake one of these reconsiderations to the claimant requesting that this happens. I am sure that the Minister will accept that these claimants have a pretty difficult life to manage anyway. To add on another process that they have to go through is going to cause all sorts of problems. Why cannot the DWP improve its processes as regards the reconsiderations so that they can happen automatically if a claimant is concerned about a decision? The DWP should get on and undertake a reconsideration, asking for any further evidence or whatever it wants. If it comes out with the same decision, it then informs the claimant and asks him or her whether they wish to pursue their appeal. I am not clear about that process. Can the Minister help me with that?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we are not trying to introduce a new stage—reconsideration and appeal have existed before; we are trying to get a better process of reconsideration before we get to appeal so that we can avoid a large number of appeals that occur. We are introducing an element of flexibility and informality so that claimants are not held quite so rigidly to deadlines, information and the form in which it comes. We plan to make the process more streamlined for them as well as for the department. We require Clause 99 to effect that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand the thrust of the point the noble Lord has just made but I am also trying to understand the position of claimants who ultimately rely on a successful appeal to end up in the right category. If I understood what the Minister said, the reconsideration needs to take place before they can get to an appeal, and there is no timeframe within which the DWP has to go through that reconsideration process before that appeal starts. Other things being equal, that would mean that it could take longer for those who rely on a successful outcome of an appeals process to end up in the right category. The extent to which that matters depends on what people are being paid in the interim. If, under ESA, they are paid the assessment period rate—the JSA rate—until the appeal has run its course, at least they may have some resources. However, if the issue is whether or not the benefit is payable at all, as there may be a dispute about capital, as I said earlier, they would receive nothing for that period. That is part of the worry. However, we understand the point about streamlining and the improvement that the noble Lord is seeking to make.
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that. It is important to the department that each stage of the decision-making and appeals process is carried out within an acceptable timescale and does not result in unreasonable delays for claimants. Alongside implementation of this power, we intend to make further improvements to the reconsideration process, which will include suitable arrangements for monitoring and, where appropriate, improving the speed of the process.
Taking the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which is allied to that to a great extent because it is a matter of how a claimant affords to live in the mean time, whatever the outcome of the appeal, the tribunal’s decision takes effect from the date of the original decision. So if the tribunal rules in the claimant’s favour and, for example, makes an award of benefit where the original decision was that the claimant did not qualify, all the arrears of benefit will be paid in full from the date that the claim took effect. I do not think that that particularly addresses the noble Lord’s concern.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness expressed the concern that claimants will not qualify for the payment of ESA pending reconsideration. I have said before and I will say again—I hope that this will address the point made by the noble Lord—no appellants should be left without support since other benefits such as JSA should be available in those cases. He also asked a broader question about benefits more generally and generously offered me the opportunity to write to him or meet him. I would be grateful if we could expand on that in such a forum.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that and very happy to deal with that matter through correspondence. However, what does he believe to be a reasonable timeframe within which the reconsideration should routinely take place? What is the target and the plan for the department?
Lord De Mauley
I do not have an answer for the noble Lord. He is right to raise this issue. Perhaps I may include that in the correspondence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister is being very helpful on this but I want to go back to the point made by my noble friend. This stemmed originally from what the noble Lord, Lord Freud, corrected, which was a misapprehension in the press some time back that people would lose ESA et cetera while they appealed. This was presented as an issue of moral hazard: why would anyone ever not appeal if they knew that through the process of appeal they would get a benefit even if subsequently this was not confirmed?
The other side of that moral hazard issue is: how many people, and under what circumstances and what benefits, could lose their income even though ultimately it might be reinstated by an appeals tribunal and backdated? During the process, which could very well take six weeks, what do they live on? The noble Lord may be able to respond now but, if not, perhaps he can write to us about in what circumstances, with what benefits and with what clients there could be a situation in which someone could lose their benefit, even though they were appealing and might subsequently be reinstated? During that process they could be living basically on the kindness of strangers.
Lord De Mauley
I understand what the noble Baroness wants and I am grateful to her for allowing me to write.
Baroness Drake
If there is an intention to put much more emphasis into making the reconsideration stage effective and efficient, is the department intending to commission an independent audit of that and to publish the findings so that people can have confidence in the effectiveness of the changes at the reconsideration stage?
Lord De Mauley
It will not be an independent process but it will be monitored closely in the department.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the Minister for that full response and the detailed explanations about a number of these tricky issues. I have no doubt that my noble friend who is unable to be with us today will read Hansard carefully and may want to come back to it later.
“(8) For the purposes of this section, “entitlement” means the amount that would have been awarded to the claimant had the claim been correctly represented and all relevant material facts disclosed for the period to which the overpayment applies.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
In moving Amendment 103ZZZA I shall speak also in support of Amendment 103ZA tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name. In fact, Amendment 103ZZZA has been designed with the help of the Child Poverty Action Group to complement and support Amendment 103ZA, and it is just an accident of drafting that it is being taken first. I shall therefore start by speaking to Amendment 103ZA, which also has the support of Carers 2000 and a large number of charities and churches. The purpose of the two amendments is to apply to universal credit the rules on recoverability of overpayments that reflect those currently applied to most benefits in regard to official errors that a claimant could not have known about and to provide for the offset of underlying entitlement from overpayments, a concept that I shall explain in a moment.
The current rules on the recoverability of overpayments that apply to most benefits provide for recovery where overpayments have arisen because of,
“misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact by a claimant or by any other person”.
This is a fair and just test which has been in place for many years and has been tried and tested in case law. Its purpose is to allow the recovery of an overpayment which arises as the result of a claimant’s actions or failures, whether innocent or fraudulent, but protects the claimant in a case where the overpayment arises because of official error by the benefit authorities. In other words, it sanctions recovery in the case of negligence by the claimant but offers protection in the case of negligence by the state. I believe that this is a fair and just balance which reflects the responsibilities of claimants to correctly notify their circumstances when claiming benefit and the benefit authorities to calculate correctly and pay awards based on the information available to them.
Clause 102 proposes to allow recovery in all cases regardless of culpability. I believe that this alters the balance of responsibilities and justice unfairly in favour of the state. It would mean, for example, that a claimant could be presented with a large bill for repayment amounting to thousands of pounds many years after an overpayment occurred, even though the overpayment was due entirely to the negligence of the benefit authorities. In return for providing accurate and up-to-date information, I believe that a claimant is entitled to the accurate calculation of payment of entitlement by the benefit authorities and that the state should bear any losses caused by its own negligence.
In the other place the Minister of State accepted that there are some real issues around whether vulnerable individuals can or cannot be aware of the error that takes place when overpayments are made without them realising it, and they only discover afterwards that they have incurred a substantial debt. We have to be careful and sensitive in that situation. He went on to say:
“The real question about the clause, however, is whether it is sensible to establish safeguards in primary legislation that apply absolutes to a situation and which effectively say, ‘You can never do anything’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 19/5/11; col. 1018.]
That recognition of the sensitivity of this is welcome, but my answer to the Minister’s question in this instance is “yes”. The Government’s view however, is, of course, “no”. Although the Government appear to have recognised the justice of the case, they have done so only by indicating that they will provide for non-recovery in cases of official error in a code of practice on recovery. Can the Minister say whether that code of practice will be published, whether it will be made public, and exactly what it will cover?
I do not believe that a code of practice is sufficient, and I would argue that it is essential that provision is statutory so that an aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal against recoverability to an independent tribunal. The claimant should have a clear right rather than be vulnerable to discretionary decision-making. The Government have expressed their confidence that the introduction of universal credit will significantly reduce the scope for official error. If that is the case, the administrative burden of retaining protections for claimants unjustly prejudiced by official-error overpayments should be greatly reduced.
The system of automatic recoverability, perhaps supplemented by a non-statutory code of practice as proposed in Clause 102, mirrors the system which applied to tax credits. This system has blighted the administration of tax credits, caused widespread injustice and hardship and has been widely condemned in the media and in reports by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Select Committees in the other place. It has also resulted in thousands of complaints to MPs, the Revenue adjudicator and the ombudsman.
Amendment 103ZZZA provides for the offset of underlying entitlement when calculating overpayments. Underlying entitlement means the entitlement that would have been paid to the claimant had the claim been made correctly at the time. For example, an overpayment might arise if a claimant had separated from their partner and the claim continued to be paid as a couple claimed for several weeks after the date of separation. The claimant had not declared the change of circumstances immediately and had told their personal adviser that they were not aware that they needed to because they had hoped that the separation was temporary. I think that sometimes, in those circumstances, you do not really want to face up to what is happening. If the claim is cancelled from the date of the separation then the claimant must make a new claim. However, had they immediately declared the change then their claim would have been reassessed as a single claim, so it would have given rise to entitlement as a single claimant which could be offset against the overpayment as underlying entitlement. I am sorry that that is slightly complicated.
This mirrors the provision in the housing and council tax benefit regulations which ensures that only the true amount of excess entitlement is recovered. This provision is particularly needed in relation to universal credit because there is a requirement for the benefit to be claimed by either a single claimant or by both members of a couple, which, as is the case with tax credits, results in many notional overpayments when there is a change of status from single to joint claims and vice versa. The Revenue has belatedly recognised the need for the offset of underlying entitlement in such cases and introduced non-statutory provision for this from January 2010. This Bill gives the opportunity of providing for offsetting on a statutory basis, ensuring that it is applied fairly, openly and consistently.
It may be that it is intended to do this in regulations. I must apologise because I have seen the draft regulations only today. I have had a quick look at them and it seems that they are perhaps intended to do that. I am glad that the Minister is nodding but it would be even better if he put it formally on the record so that we know that that is the case. I am very happy that for once the Minister is nodding rather than shaking his head when I am speaking. There is another question that I hope the Minister will be nodding at as well. Can he assure the Committee that there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the case of a dispute as to whether an overpayment was caused by official error and should or should not be recovered; or—I do not see any nodding going on there—if there is no such right of appeal, how will a claimant be able to challenge a decision to recover an overpayment?
In conclusion, this might appear to be a rather techy amendment. However, the strong lobbying by a wide number of churches and charities signals its significance. The reason they are so concerned is in part because they believe it to be simply unfair that a claimant might have to pay for a mistake made by the state. They are also concerned because they know from their own work what this would mean in terms of hardship and possibly increased debt to moneylenders and loan sharks as claimants’ benefit was reduced below the statutory minimum. Heaven help them if they are also subject to capping. I hope the Minister will look favourably on a small but important amendment, which serves to protect the underlying rights of claimants. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I support the case that the noble Baroness has made. I am particularly interested in the answer to the question about an independent appeal right in these circumstances. That would be very useful indeed and I hope that the Minister can confirm that that will be true.
I have four amendments in this group. They can be dealt with with reasonable dispatch but they deal with a very important issue that surrounds the whole question of amounts recoverable by deductions from earnings. During the Bill’s Commons stages the Government amended Clause 102 to add a new Section 71ZD(3)(e), which addresses the,
“level of earnings below which earnings must not be reduced”.
That is very welcome, as far as it goes, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a bit about whether any thought has been given to how that will be delivered and how that protection will be rolled out. That is important.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 103ZA, which is in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking about it earlier and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and my noble friend Lady Meacher for their support. This Bill gives considerable discretion to jobcentre officials over many decisions and this amendment is about an area of their discretion that has been limited since the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Members of the other place have now proposed that this limit to their discretion should be removed. The provision of the 1976 Act was repeated in Clause 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in which the Secretary of State has to prove that a claimant must have either misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact in order to recover an overpayment, thus protecting claimants from the recovery of payments arising entirely out of official error. Previously there was no provision for the recovery of administrative costs either, which the current Bill could also change.
Think about a claimant who has a letter from officials telling him that he is entitled to universal credit, which is paid to the landlord in rent. However, six months later, officials tell him that they have made a mistake and ask him to repay several thousand pounds—money that has already gone to the landlord, either direct from the local authority or from the claimant. The issue that then has to be discussed with the claimant is whether he or she could have known it was an error. If it can be proved that the claimant could not reasonably have known that it was, then the state has to bear the cost of the state’s mistakes. It is difficult to understand why such a reasonable and just law should be repealed.
This amendment is proposed by Caritas Social Action Network and the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and I am grateful to them for their detailed briefings. It is also supported by more than 20 NGOs, including organisations from five different Christian denominations, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, AdviceUK, Community Links, Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centres, Mind, Money Advice Trust, the National Housing Federation, Save the Children, Shelter and the United Kingdom Public Health Association. All of them, in one way or another, are working for the poorest citizens of the United Kingdom.
They are all concerned that overpayments of universal credit and council tax that claimants could not reasonably be expected to notice would be left to build up over time into significant cumulative debts that the state could then recover through court action or reductions in benefits. Such debt recovery would jeopardise basic living costs, housing security, payment of utilities bills and nutrition, and risk damaging mental health.
An additional concern relates to the announcement by the Minister for Employment in another place that the standard allowance of the universal credit will be £67.50 a week for a single adult. The Joseph Rowntree minimum income food standard is £46.31 a week for a healthy diet. The sum of £67.50 will not cover the weekly cost of all essential items for an adult, let alone the additional repayment of overpayments, debts or arrears.
The burden could be further increased, for example, through the state additionally recovering the costs that it incurs when making recoveries through the courts, or through employers recovering administrative costs that they incur when instructed to reduce a claimant’s wages in order to offset a benefit overpayment. In both of these circumstances, people may end up with debts larger than the sum they were originally overpaid by—a seemingly illogical and unjust situation.
Another concern is that it seems possible that the DWP would be able to recover the overpayment from landlords, or from anyone who happens to be living with a claimant who is a beneficiary of the benefit concerned. The recovery of large blameless overpayments will have a devastating effect, not just on the claimant but on all other members of the household, which might include children, a pregnant woman or a disabled person who has particular additional nutritional and health needs.
It is inevitable that a new IT system for the delivery of welfare will create errors that are the fault of the employer entering information, officials at HMRC or the jobcentre. This is most likely when pilots are being run to test the system. The poorest citizens and their families should not have to pay the debts arising from any faulty consequences of the Government’s reforms.
As well as these immediate and potentially devastating impacts, such significant financial burdens all too often result in mental health difficulties or exacerbate existing ones—a link consistently highlighted by prominent institutions such as the Government Office for Science or charities such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Mind. Numerous reports have drawn attention to the direct correlation between large debts and family breakdown, illustrating the further dangers of subjecting those dependent on benefits to unexpected reclaims. Clearly such consequences would be utterly at odds with the Government’s intentions with this Bill.
Assurances have been given in the other place that officials will exercise common sense and considered decision-making, so as not to cause undue hardship. But the removal of the existing safeguard in primary legislation will mean that each case is ultimately based on the discretion of different officials, and would leave absolutely no guarantee that decisions will err on the side of protecting vulnerable people. This could lead to expensive litigation, if advice and legal aid could be found, which could have been avoided had the prohibition remained in place. However, it is more likely that the vulnerable claimant will pay, because of the lack of advice and legal aid, all of which has been cut. Then the claimants will suffer the stress of unmanageable debt and an increased risk of mental health problems and family breakdown.
It should be emphasised that the proposed amendment would not affect recoverability when overpayments result from the misrepresentation or withholding of relevant facts by a claimant, thus providing no respite for those seeking to defraud the system. Rather, it seeks to maintain three decades of protection—rightly afforded, in my view, to benefit claimants—from human error or technical fault by departments, landlords or local authorities, and any future errors as the result of the new IT system.
I urge the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration, to reinforce an existing provision that protects those whose health and welfare will be further compromised without it.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 103ZA. I will be brief. It may appear overly generous on the part of a cash-strapped Government already making severe cuts in benefits and public services not to demand repayments. However, in the interests of natural and administrative justice it cannot be right to request repayment when every penny is already allocated to get a family through the week—and now to be the month. Benefits are about to be cut and will no longer keep pace with inflation. Housing, energy, food and travel costs are all rising at frightening speed. With the best will in the world, I cannot comprehend how a family which is already struggling can be asked to pay back more than its members are currently being paid either in wages or benefits or both. Many charities and churches have raised the alarm over this element of the Bill. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider such a course. It may seem small in the overall picture of state spending but would be enormous for a family on an already modest income.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hayter is going to do Front-Bench duty on this group of amendments. I want to speak briefly to Clause 105, where a probing amendment has been put down, to make sure that we have understood what is happening in respect of the statute of limitations.
My understanding is that, at the moment, to take action to recover sums which are outstanding, you cannot go back more than six years: they are statute-barred at six years. The issue is what an action is for these purposes. The clause clarifies that, other than proceedings in a court of law, recoveries of sums due are not actions. The consequence, as I understand it, is that they are not statute-barred, so unless you need to take action through court proceedings, as a result of this clause there is no statute of limitations applying to debts arising under the Social Security Act or the provisions that are set down in the clause. That seems to be a departure from the existing position.
Moreover, the clause says that the amendment is regarded as having always formed part of the 1980 Act, so that it is retrospective, and does not just operate from the date this clause comes into existence, except in respect of proceedings. I have a question as to what, for these purposes, the proceedings are which would still remain outside the retrospection of this clause. But more importantly, what assessment has been made of the additional amounts that might be brought in scope for recovery as a result of these changes to the law?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as has been set out my noble friends and other noble Baronesses, the amendments relate to how and in what circumstances the state will seek to recover overpayment of universal credit from claimants. As many here, although not me, will remember, the issue of overpayments caused a considerable headache for the previous Government when tax credits were introduced, so it is vital that the present Government get this part of the Bill right. I am sure that anyone with those memories will support this.
In this Bill we have the added complication that, in addition to overpayments being recoverable from the claimant, they will also be recoverable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has mentioned, from landlords in certain situations. I am not talking about dodgy landlords but those who are blissfully unaware that the rent they were receiving was not from their tenant but was due to some sort of overpayment, whether by accident or design on the part of the tenant claimant or by error on the part of the DWP. We know that at present there are some cases of overpaid housing benefit that can be recovered from a landlord. Could the Minister tell the Committee whether this clause widens the set of circumstances in which benefits can be recovered? Also, what type of benefit could be recovered from landlords, rather than from claimants? What consultation has taken place on this proposal with the NLA or any other representative of landlords?
I have certainly heard anecdotal remarks from both actual and potential landlords. By the way, I am not someone who thinks that lots of anecdotes add up to evidence. However, I have heard that the idea that landlords might be asked to make good some overpayment made to a tenant when they have no way of recouping it from the tenant is a further disincentive to entering or remaining in this market. I remind the Minister that this comes just at a time when access to private rented accommodation, especially the one-bedroom type quite favoured by small landlords, is so needed due to the housing shortage; to take in the swathe of refugees from the social housing sector as his policy on underoccupation kicks in; and as families may be forced to leave high-rent London for far distant places, as we heard earlier today. We need to encourage landlords to make properties available, not threaten them that they may be left paying for overpayment of a tenant’s claims.
Amendment 103ZZA seeks to ensure that the recovery of any overpayment leaves the claimant with the correct entitlement based on their circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Lister spelt out. Again, this draws on the experience of tax credits, where in some cases claimants were asked to pay back overpayments on the one hand while applying for additional entitlement because of a change in circumstances on the other. The amendment would make sure that the end result is that the claimant receives the payment to which he or she is entitled.
Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD and 103ZZE seek to replace references to earnings with those to income, and then to ensure that the recovery of overpaid benefits cannot leave a claimant without sufficient income on which to live. As has been said, within the current system protections of this type are in place, setting limits on the amount by which the DWP, local authority or HMRC can reduce benefit payments to recover an overpayment. Could the Minister let us know what limits the department intends to place on the recovery of universal credit, and whether they will meet the aim of ensuring that claimants retain a minimum amount on which to live?
Amendment 103ZA ensures that benefits overpaid as a result of official error cannot be recovered when the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that he or she was being overpaid. In explaining new Section 115C in Clause 113, the DWP says that negligence constitutes not exercising the care which the circumstances demand; that is, being careless. It gives the example of not checking statements made in a claim. However, this amendment is quite different. It is not about lack of care; it is about lack of knowledge. The claimant cannot be expected to know that the amount they were receiving was in fact an overpayment.
Each of us, perhaps even some very rich people in this Room, would know whether £1 million came into our bank accounts as opposed to the £1,000 that we were expecting. However, I have to confess that when the DWP pays my pension I have no idea whether the amount is correct. It is difficult to determine that, partly because I do not get a monthly statement—the equivalent of a pay slip—from the DWP and partly because it is four-weekly and every now and again there is a month when I receive two payments. If that happened to fall in January and then perhaps in October and I got a double payment, I am afraid that I would have absolutely no idea whether that was the correct timing for my extra bonus month—it is always very nice—or whether it was an error, and I have precious little way of checking. This amendment is about ensuring that any overpayment which the claimant could not be expected to know was wrong should not be clawed back. I promise noble Lords that it is not intended to protect my own position; it is tabled simply in the interests of fairness.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am delighted to hear such full-hearted support for monthly payments. First, I would like to speak to Amendment 103ZZA in my name. This amendment is technical in nature and seeks to restore the policy intent and simple premise that where a claimant has a debt, the debt should be recoverable from them. In the majority of cases, overpayments of benefit, penalties, payments on account and certain hardship payments will be recoverable from the claimant and will be recovered by deduction from the benefit that is paid to them. As the Bill is drafted, however, the Secretary of State is prevented from recovering such payments where the claimant’s benefit is paid directly to a third party, for example a landlord. This means that recovery from a claimant is limited to deduction from those benefits paid directly to them. This is unintended and so this amendment seeks to ensure that where a claimant’s benefit that is subject to recovery is paid to a third party, recovery may be made from that benefit.
This ensures that the DWP maintains the same powers of recovery as it does presently for recovery by deduction from housing benefit where it is paid directly to a landlord. Although the claimant may have other benefits from which deductions could be made, to do so adds both cost and complexity to the recovery process. In such cases, where no benefit is payable other than that paid to the third party, the DWP would be reliant on negotiating repayment from non-benefit income or potentially using direct earnings attachments to recover from debtors who are in pay-as-you-earn employment.
The situation becomes even more difficult where the debtor will not negotiate repayment, has no benefits paid directly to them and is not in pay-as-you-earn employment. Without the amendment, this would result in a situation where the DWP or local authorities have no effective way to recover the overpayment or penalty. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that where there is an obligation to repay benefit debt, the fullest possible powers should be available to the relevant authorities to make recovery by the most efficient means.
I shall now address Amendments 103ZZB, 103ZZC, 103ZZD, 103ZZE, 103ZA and 103ZZZA. These opposition amendments seek to achieve a number of objectives, but are primarily concerned with protecting debtors. I am sure that there is no disagreement over the need for safeguards for vulnerable claimants and those in financial difficulty. We recognise, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that protection needs to extend to the calculation of overpayments as well as their recovery. In common with the noble Baroness, we recognise that such a provision has value in ensuring that an overpayment reflects the true loss of public funds and for this very reason, such a provision already exists in secondary legislation relating to the recovery of overpayments of current benefits.
Like the noble Baroness, we believe that similar provisions should apply here, but feel that such a provision sits more happily in secondary legislation. For that reason, I am happy to offer my assurances that it is our intention to make provision for such a calculation in the regulations to be made under Clause 102, new Section 71ZB(4), which allows regulations to provide that recoverable amounts,
“are to be calculated or estimated in a prescribed manner”.
Placing the provision in secondary legislation allows for both flexibility and review.
Concerning the other issues raised within these amendments, I believe that future overpayment recovery from working-age claimants will be more streamlined and efficient than it is presently. Recovery will thus provide both greater returns and better value for money for taxpayers. For example, under the previous Administration, it was believed that there was a right under common law to recover overpayments occurring due to official error, and the DWP thus requested repayment of those overpayments on that basis. I see that noble Lords who may have been responsible for those requests are in agreement. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no such right and that is why we are legislating to bring the law for working-age benefits back in line with the policy of the previous administration—a policy that we support.
Prescribing that an overpayment caused by official error would not be recoverable if the claimant could not reasonably be expected to know that they were being overpaid brings forward a need to make subjective assessment of the debtor’s capacity to understand entitlement before the overpayment is determined. Although I sympathise with the lack of understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about all the incredible overpayments that she gets and the £1 million that goes into her bank account on a regular basis, I have to say that that is not workable in this context. The DWP will not be prescribing those circumstances for the discretionary write-off or non-recovery of an overpayment. Cases will be considered carefully on their individual merits because each case is different.
As mentioned earlier, the code of practice will outline the policy as to whether recovery should be pursued, and lead to considered, consistent decision making. in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am happy to confirm that that will be published in the form of a leaflet.
Considering whether an overpayment can, or should be recovered, the DWP will look at a number of factors, not solely whether the claimant received the money in good faith. It will have regard to ensuring that deductions from benefit or earnings—
Baroness Meacher
Will the code of practice be available to us before Report so that we know whether we have a reasonable situation?
Lord Freud
Yes, I am pleased to confirm that it will be available in draft. I want to avoid the cost of printing up a leaflet.
We will ensure that deductions from benefit or earnings to repay an overpayment should not lead a debtor to suffer undue hardship. That remains a cornerstone of our overpayment recovery policy. As presently, future benefit recovery will be subject to regulations that provide for a maximum rate of recovery. In many instances, however, this maximum rate of recovery may still prove unaffordable for some claimants. In such cases, the DWP will discuss an alternative repayment rate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I realise that the Minister is going fast, but let us be quite clear. In the past, and I stand to be corrected, my understanding is that when there has been official error and overpayment we would request a repayment. If that request was not responded to or met, effectively, that was pretty much the end of the story. In particular, somebody with a history of disability, poor health, financial pressures and so forth, almost invariably would not reply.
We need to hear from the Minister whether he is moving from request to require; whether he is moving the discourse from the first to the second. I thought that the first was reasonable, so that if they could afford it, they should repay, but if it was unreasonable, then they did not. If he is going from request to require, we need another step in the procedures to try to ensure that those from whom he will require the repayment of debt are in a reasonable position to do so. He cannot just change the words. He has to institute another procedure and another step in the equation. I know that the Minister is going fast but perhaps he might reflect on this and write to us so that we can take this up later. That must be the case.
Lord Freud
I am going to come on to that point, which is critical. Although the starting point for overpayment recoverability will be that almost all overpayments of working-age benefits within the scope of Clause 102 will be recoverable upon application, DWP will consider a claimant’s means, income or expenditure if the debtor considers that they are in hardship.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The point is that under the previous system the recipient determined what would happen. What the Minister is suggesting is that the DWP will determine whether recovery takes place.
Lord Freud
No. I think what I said is that if the debtor considers that they are in hardship, they can say that and then there is a process built on that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry to take up the Committee’s time, but previously if the recipient said that they were not going to do it, that ended it. There was not an assumption that there was space for negotiation. What the Minister seems to be suggesting is that there will be a requirement, and then the claimant has to opt out rather than the old arrangement, which is that if the recipient said that they were not in a position to repay, that ended the matter. It is a question of where the power lies. Under the old system, the power of refusal lay with the claimant. The Minister is suggesting that it will lie with the DWP, and only if the DWP is persuaded will the claimant be allowed to opt out.
Lord Freud
Yes, that is the process. It becomes a requirement, and then if the claimant says, “Look, I can’t afford that rate, I’m in hardship”, then it is adjusted. That is a regular process. In practice, only half the people now make repayments at the maximum rate. That is a very well established process which works pretty well, and I do not think we need to put in extra processes.
My noble friend Lord Kirkwood—Kirkwood of Kirkhope, some people were unaware—asked about an independent appeal right. There is just a general appeal right here for overpayments, and I think that covers this as much as anything else.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Is that an appeal that is open to landlords as well?
Lord Freud
What we are talking about, and what I was describing, is where a payment would be going directly to a landlord, but it is for the rent. There would be recovery from that, so then the obligation becomes the debtor’s to replace that amount for the landlord, so, no, the landlord does not have a right to appeal because it is not his money. It is just a direct payment device.
As my noble friend recognised with his amendments, claimants may have other debts that are being repaid that will impact their ability to repay their DWP debt. In such an instance, we may agree that recovery should be suspended until a particular financial commitment of the debtor ends. Additionally, because we recognise that hardship need not solely be financial, these considerations will include whether recovery is likely to be a threat to the health and welfare of not only the debtor but their immediate family. Exceptionally, where it is warranted, DWP may decide not to pursue or to stop pursuing recovery. These hardship situations are well established and balance the needs of the debtor and those of the taxpayer. I believe that this approach is more effective than the prescriptive considerations set out in the amendments. This approach ensures that those claimants who are able to meet the repayment obligations do so and recognises that in some instances there is a need to take into account a claimant’s specific personal circumstances. I trust I have assured noble Lords that these amendments are unnecessary as we already have protections in place to ensure that a debtor does not suffer undue hardship when deductions from benefits or earnings are made and that, where appropriate, a claimant’s individual circumstances will be fully considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about limits on universal credit recovery. Recovery will be subject to a maximum rate, as it is currently. This will differ depending on whether the payment is wholly universal credit or a combination of universal credit and earnings. We still have well established hardship considerations. If repayment causes difficulty in those circumstances, we will be able to discuss it. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 105 stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 clarifies that the Limitation Act does not apply to the recovery of benefit overpayments and of social fund and tax credit debts by methods other than court action. It ensures that recovery of such debts by deduction from ongoing entitlement can continue beyond the six-year limitation period for bringing court action. DWP has long taken the view that the statute of limitations has no application to the recovery of benefit overpayments or social fund debts by means other than court action, including by deduction from continuing benefit entitlement.
However, in a 2009 case involving recovery of a housing benefit overpayment by a local authority the High Court came to a different view. DWP was not involved in that case, but given that it could be read as applying also to the recovery of other benefit overpayments and of social fund payments, we believe it is necessary to introduce this measure so that we remain able to balance the recovery of public funds against the financial circumstances of the debtor. In many cases, seeking to recover social security or tax credit debt by means of deduction in a period of no more than six years would place an unfair or impossible burden on the debtor and their family.
We are not proposing anything new; Clause 105 merely clarifies a long-standing and well accepted interpretation of the application of the Limitation Act limitation to the recovery of social security and tax credit debt. The provision ensures that all deductions of benefit made more than six years after the debt became due since Section 9 of the Limitation Act came into force were, or will be deemed to be, legitimately made. It is retrospective to cover the legality of recoveries of six years of debt already made under the presumption that that was the legal position.
By contrast, without this clause—Egyptian calligraphy is very complicated—we may be forced to endeavour to recover all overpayments within six years, and this would imply higher recovery rates and potentially hardship for claimants affected. We have made this measure retrospective to cover all recoveries already made, as I have already said. I hope this clarification will convince the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to allow Clause 105 to stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I will be very brief. I thank the various noble Lords who have contributed and really strengthened the case that was made. Readers of the Official Report may not be able to tell a joke when they see it—my noble friend was not supporting monthly payments, and we will be coming back to that on Report.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very glad that the noble Lord has put on record that the question about underlying entitlement will be covered in the regulations. I am sorry that he is not prepared to put into statute the protection of claimants where it is the department that has made the mistake, not the individual. I am unhappy with so much discretion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made that point. I am very pleased that the code of practice will be published in the form of a leaflet and that noble Lords will be able to see it before Report. I welcome that, and I welcome what I think the Minister said that there would the general right of appeal on overpayment questions. It is good to have that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at 3.30 pm.
House of Lords
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lockerbie
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will continue to make representations to the National Transitional Council of Libya to make available any evidence in their possession concerning the attack on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 to the Lord Advocate and the Scottish police to assist their investigation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. We will approach Libya’s newly formed transitional Government about getting the Dumfries and Galloway police back to Libya at the earliest opportunity to take forward their investigations. The National Transitional Council chairman, Abdul Jalil, has assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the new Libyan authorities will co-operate with the UK on this and other ongoing investigations.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
While I welcome the Minister’s statement, does he believe that the recent capture of Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, and of the intelligence archives in Tripoli, may finally provide the vital information that would assist the Lord Advocate with his ongoing inquiries? I ask this question as one of the two former Ministers who were at the crime scene within a few hours and who met some of the relatives shortly afterwards. In order to bring closure to the families of 270 victims, is it not highly desirable that they should learn from any new evidence exactly what happened 23 years ago, and precisely what the background was to this monstrous crime?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, it is desirable and yes, indeed, it was the most monstrous crime. We are seeking confirmation from the Libyan Government regarding the reported detention of Abdullah al-Senussi. We have been clear that no effort should be spared in bringing him to justice. Al-Senussi’s arrest, if confirmed, would offer an opportunity to uncover the truth behind some of the former regime’s dreadful crimes. As I just said, the Government will continue to support the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary’s investigation into the bombing. We would want any new evidence to be made available to it and indeed to the Lord Advocate. I am confident that the new Libyan Government will act in accordance with Chairman Jalil’s commitment to co-operate with the UK on this and other investigations, and bring closure to the concerns and misery of the families of the victims.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would also shed light on this matter if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission were published in full, so far as is possible?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course, there has been the report of Sir Gus O’Donnell. It has been placed in the Library and it was fully discussed when it was produced some weeks ago. Further light needs to be shed on this and I am confident that, with the full assistance of the new Libyan Government, we will get the papers and the evidence to show exactly what was said and by whom.
Lord Empey
My Lords, can the Minister tell us that in addition to pursuing the issue of Lockerbie, the Government will rigorously and vigorously pursue the issue of compensation for all UK victims who were damaged by weapons supplied to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime and that the Government themselves will lead those negotiations rather than leaving them to third parties?
Lord Howell of Guildford
At present we are looking at all possible options with the Libyan Government to get a resolution on the legacy issues, including this one, which is certainly a very high priority. It is very early days for the new Libyan Government as they have only just been appointed, but we want to see a broad proposal for embracing questions of compensation, reconciliation and, indeed, investment in Northern Ireland. We are trying to develop a broad approach with, and led by, the Libyan Government.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is utterly natural and inevitable that parliaments the world over should seek to have as much light as possible cast upon the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing? However, technically speaking, a request should be made formally by the Scottish Parliament themselves—bearing in mind, of course, the transfer of jurisdiction in relation to that. As for this Parliament, could the same principle not also apply to casting light upon those who were responsible for the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher?
Lord Howell of Guildford
On the second point about WPC Yvonne Fletcher, that is most certainly so. We are in touch with the Metropolitan Police about reopening their investigations into the perpetrators of that hideous crime. On the former question, the decision was made by the devolved Scottish Government and it is a matter for them to pursue. We have indicated that the Government in London will give full assistance to the devolved Government in pursuing their inquiries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us about the state of health of Mr Al Megrahi, who was released by the Scottish authorities on the grounds that he had only six months to live?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We have passed a request from the devolved Administration to the Libyan chargé d’affaires in London asking that the supervision arrangements of Al Megrahi’s licence are observed. Part of the investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway police will also embrace the question of his condition, but we are awaiting the precise details of his health from the Libyan Government now.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Does the Minister accept that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request to the National Transitional Council and that a statement has been issued by the Crown Office to the effect that the trial court of Mr Al Megrahi accepted that he did not act alone?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not sure that I can comment on my noble friend’s second point, but it is certainly correct that the Lord Advocate has put in a formal request, and indeed has made that absolutely clear to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are collaborating closely on this.
Health: Flu Vaccine Research
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to fund research into more effective flu vaccines, in the light of the recent report in The Lancet.
Earl Howe
My Lords, research on the development of new flu vaccines is being actively carried out by academic departments in universities, biotechnology companies and vaccine manufacturers. There are number of improved vaccines in the final stages of development and licensed products may become available over the next few years. The department does not fund the development of new vaccines, but does support some work on basic research and research to inform policy in this area.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, did the Lancet report not warn that the currently used vaccine is effective for only six out of 10 of the persons receiving it, and that the virus can actually change to outwit that vaccine? Has my noble friend studied a more recent report from the chief virologist at Barts and the Royal Hospital about a new vaccine which not only gives lifelong protection in only one jab but also overrides the virus changes? Would it not be a real boon for patients if this were looked at more carefully, and perhaps brought in? It would save a lot of money for the NHS.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is extremely well informed. I have not seen the report that she mentioned. The only licensed vaccines currently supplied to the UK are inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines, but it is expected that within the next few years others will become available, including a live attenuated trivalent intranasal vaccine next year. In the future, an adjuvanted vaccine and a quadrivalent vaccine may also become available. The JCVI—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—has looked at some of these new vaccines and believes that they present exciting prospects for greater efficacy.
Lord Patel
Does the Minister agree that it is currently the task of the Health Protection Agency to track these infections globally and to do research to make sure that we are prepared if there is a pandemic of a different flu virus? Does he therefore agree that any proposals that lead to the Health Protection Agency—which is recognised worldwide for research and expertise —not being allowed to carry out research as it currently does are flawed?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are very clear that the Health Protection Agency performs a major public service and we have no intention of disrupting the work that it does, least of all by interfering with its research. As the noble Lord knows, the proposals are to shift the Health Protection Agency into the new, larger government agency, Public Health England. The World Health Organisation is actually the body that monitors the strains of flu worldwide and issues twice-yearly warnings to countries about the strains that are emerging so that countries can prepare for their forthcoming winter flu season.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree with me that—despite the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about the Lancet report, which I have read—there is still an important need for people who work in the health service to have the current vaccine? It is not taken up by everybody, despite many trusts trying to ensure that everybody does take it up. Is there a stronger message that could go out from the Government that it is really important to do this? Forcing people is perhaps too much, but certainly it is a real issue.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is quite right. The Chief Medical Officer wrote to the NHS on 25 May, citing four studies that provide strong evidence of the benefit of influenza vaccination for front-line healthcare workers. These studies show clearly that healthcare workers can transmit influenza to patients, that vaccination of healthcare workers can prevent that transmission and that vaccination of healthcare workers can lead to better health outcomes in the vulnerable patients with whom they very often deal.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is a problem with supplying the H1N1 vaccine? If that is the case, how is it proposed to target it more effectively and what steps will be taken to make sure that vulnerable people are targeted first?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there were supply problems last winter, but my advice is that there are none this winter. Indeed, the quantity of vaccine that has been ordered for this winter’s anticipated flu outbreak is considerably larger than was the case last year. The Government also have a reserve stock of vaccine to be deployed in the event of local shortages.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the recently published Department of Health report on winter preparedness says that by the end of the 2010 flu vaccine season, only about 50 per cent of those under 65 years old in the clinical risk groups had been vaccinated. The Chief Medical Officer states that we need to,
“ reach or exceed 75% uptake”,
of this group and for pregnant women. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, I understand that this year there will be no advertising campaign in England to raise awareness of the importance of flu jabs. Will the Minister rethink this policy to ensure that this target is achieved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the difficulty with advertising is that there is no evidence either way as to whether an advertising campaign has an impact on vaccine uptake, although there is no doubt that it has an impact on vaccine awareness. Without a marketing campaign last year, it was notable that the flu vaccine uptake was very similar to that achieved in previous years. We believe that the best way to access those who are at risk is through GPs. We know that from surveys that ask patients what has prompted them to get vaccination.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein
My Lords, has the Minister seen reports in the nursing press that student nurses are being denied the influenza vaccine, despite advice to the contrary from the Chief Medical Officer? Can he comment on that and see whether something can be done about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, although student nurses are not technically employees, as the noble Lord will know, they will be working for a particular NHS trust, with that trust’s patients, and it is therefore the trust’s responsibility to consider the safety of the student nurse and indeed the patients that they care for. If student nurses are going to be carrying out front-line work, particularly with vulnerable patients, then the trust should follow the advice we have issued on healthcare workers generally.
Education and Skills Act 2008
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to commence the duty on school governing bodies to invite and consider pupils’ views, introduced through section 157 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the commencement of Section 157 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 is under review. Section 176 of the Education Act 2002 already requires schools to have regard to statutory guidance on consulting pupils, and remains on the statute book. We are revising the guidance published under Section 176 and have been working closely with a wide range of interested parties, including children’s charities, in its development.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. As we move towards the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the UK ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on 16 December, it is very important that that guidance is consulted on and is very clear to schools. Can my noble friend say when that guidance will actually be published, so that people can be quite clear about how schools should go about implementing the UN convention, in particular, article 12, which is about the child having a right to have his or her voice heard and opinions taken seriously on any matters affecting him or her?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about the importance of the guidance and it being clear and intelligible. I am not able to give a specific date today as to precisely when we will be publishing that. I fall back on the normal formulation of “soon”. I know how much the issue matters to my noble friend and I will make her point and point out the arrival of the anniversary to my honourable friend in the department.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, will the Minister agree that, by becoming a school governor and making an important contribution to their school’s well-being, pupils can gain early experience of citizenship that will be so important later in life, so this will be a really important step in the right direction? Can he please encourage his fellow Ministers to encourage all those who are going to make that decision in future?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree about the advantages and benefits that could come from schools involving their pupils in decisions affecting them and the school. No one will know better than the noble Baroness the extent to which that happens, given the large number of schools—I think 95 per cent of schools—that have school councils. Many governing bodies have pupils as associate members. I know the noble Baroness would like to go further and faster on that, and we had a good debate about it during the Education Bill. I agree with her in that, where schools want to find ways of involving and encouraging children, I would very much support that. Where the Government and the noble Baroness parted company during the Education Bill was over making that a requirement and compulsory in both primary and secondary schools. However, the principle of involving children is an important one.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, would my noble friend like to consider that, as we have had more and more of this sort of guff promoted through the education system, the standards of education, knowledge and discipline of children at school have steadily fallen. Would it not be a good idea to get back to the idea that teachers teach, pupils learn and that one has to learn to take orders before one can give orders?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, if my noble friend had been able to sit in on some of our extremely lengthy deliberations on the Education Bill, particularly as we ground through Committee in the Moses Room, where all those present were extremely resilient in the hours they put into debating it, he would know that a significant part of the current Education Bill has precisely the sort of measure that he would welcome—giving greater authority to teachers to teach. We all know that orderly environments are environments where children are safer, and environments in which children are safer are those where they can learn better. Therefore, I completely accept the need for an orderly environment. What I do not accept is that there is necessarily an either/or between looking after the interests of children and wanting to make sure that they learn in an orderly environment. It is possible to do both.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, at Third Reading the Minister told us that he estimates about 95 per cent of schools have a school council or some form of consultation process for pupils. That means that, despite the guidance he referred to, for pupils at more than 1,000 schools there is no such forum that we know about. Contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, does the Minister agree that engaging with pupils is not only good practice for the schools, but also encourages responsibility and active citizenship among the pupils? Therefore, in addition to the guidance, what do the Government intend to do to ensure that all schools have some appropriate consultation and active participation mechanisms for students?
Lord Hill of Oareford
In all these things, one needs to strike a balance between seeking to move in the direction of involving children and being overly prescriptive in the ways one goes about doing it. We think the balance is about right in terms of the degree of guidance that we give and the way that schools are responding. One of the other developments, which will probably not be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, is that the Government have said that they are looking at ways of strengthening the role of the office of the Children's Commissioner, and are thereby looking at making sure that children’s rights as set out under the UN convention would be enforced.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on saying that the Children's Commissioner is going to be given greater powers. That is an extremely important advance, of which many Members of this House would very much approve. Taking up what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, would the Minister agree that for children to have their views heard does not mean that children are giving orders?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am afraid that I got lost as to whether I am supposed to give a negative or positive reply to the question. It is absolutely the case that for children’s views to be heard we need to have orderly and disciplined environments in schools. It is extremely important to emphasise that point; it is the case, over quite a long period of time, that there has been a balance towards treating adults more like children and children more like adults. I would quite like the balance to shift back towards treating adults more like adults and looking after children and treating children like children, to give them the care and support they need. Then they can grow up and flourish.
Colombia
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their discussions with the President of Colombia during his visit will include the subject of monitoring the human rights and environmental impacts of British and multinational corporations engaged in mining activities in Colombia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, discussions covered a range of issues, including human rights. We agreed a joint declaration on human rights. We held a “green growth” event, in which we discussed the importance of environmental impact assessments for the mining industry. Our embassy in Colombia was a founding member of the Colombian Mining and Energy Committee, which includes government, industry and civil society observers. It looks at compliance with the voluntary principles on security and human rights.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, what advice do the Government provide for British companies operating in Colombia to help them to comply with the ILO Convention No. 169, which gives indigenous populations the right to free and informed consent to projects that will affect them? There have been disturbing reports of companies that wish to exploit indigenous lands by colluding with misinformation campaigns and forced mass displacement. Can the Minister assure the House that no British companies are involved in such activities and, instead, that they are encouraged to help the new Colombian Government to deliver on their commitments to human rights?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I can assure the noble Baroness that the embassy meets regularly with representatives of indigenous communities and discusses these things. More specifically, as with other embassies, we encourage and expect British companies to respect human rights in the places where they do business. Both the UKTI and the Bogota embassy provide advice, including on prior consultation, for British companies to ensure that this happens. The embassy also has monitored very closely two particular companies where there were concerns, and I could certainly inform the noble Baroness, if she so wishes, at any time on the details of how they got on. But the answer broadly is that, yes, this is the way we wish to move and, although there are British interests in some of these companies, they have been under very close monitoring and pressure and there has been some improvement.
Lord Avebury
Is my noble friend aware that the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples said on 31 October at the Peace Brigades International conference in London that it was important to assist indigenous peoples to build their capacity for negotiation? Would DfID consider funding the training of indigenous peoples in Colombia to develop their skills and knowledge so they can negotiate effectively with political authorities and multinational companies so as to produce development agreements that protect and advance their interests?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As I just told the noble Baroness, officials in our embassy meet regularly with indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. Additionally, the embassy is funding a project in Colombia aimed at developing the role of organisations in protecting the rights to the territories. We are also providing technical assistance to the Colombian Government to work towards effective implementation of the new land and victims law, which aims to return land to huge numbers of displaced people and compensate victims. We are also funding projects to support access to justice and protection of human rights defenders, and we will continue to provide support for the Colombian Government wherever possible.
Lord Judd
Is it not the case that in situations like Colombia the absence of human rights leads to further instability and alienation and that it is absolutely essential, not only in Colombia but across the world and, indeed, within the United Kingdom itself, to recognise that stability and security require people to be able to fulfil their potential in a situation founded on the belief in and conviction of human rights?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord, who has campaigned endlessly and bravely in these many areas, is absolutely right; human rights and human responsibilities—closely associated with the necessary degree of trust and investment—produce higher living standards. The whole package goes together nowadays in this increasingly transparent world; it cannot be avoided. Governments around the world will have to face it. We shall do our best here, both to face our own conditions and indeed to encourage others.
Baroness Hooper
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that the President and his Foreign Secretary, by coming to Parliament to meet and talk with parliamentarians, as he did on Monday, and by meeting NGOs and lobby groups specifically about human rights, as he did yesterday, demonstrated a willingness to listen and to take action to remedy the inheritance and consequences of violence, terrorism and drug trafficking that have overshadowed his country in recent years? Should we not now concentrate on improving our trade and cultural links with Colombia in order to improve the lot of the people and help them to return to normal relations with the rest of the world?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, President Santos has just had a very successful visit here, and my noble friend is quite right that he has an active reform agenda, which he has carried forward with vigour, and which is moving his country to what some people call a “new Colombia”. It is certainly a very dynamic country, one with increasing trade and linkages with this country, and one that we are determined to befriend and support in its reform phase. So yes, President Santos has acted with vigour on the human rights front and is carrying forward changes that were undoubtedly needed.
Lord Stern of Brentford
My Lords, would the Minister agree that conflict and insecurity are deeply damaging for both human rights and environmental protection, and that the level of conflict and insecurity in Colombia over the past 10 years has been dramatically lower than in the preceding 40 or 50? Would he also allow me to observe that President Santos is an alumnus of the LSE? I chaired his presentation to the LSE yesterday and these questions of human rights and environmental protection were discussed very frankly and directly.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, I certainly allow the noble Lord to observe that valid and very constructive point; it is certainly so. It is also, of course, a fact that the revolutionary guerrilla movement, the so-called FARC, has grown weaker over the years. Indeed, noble Lords will have read the reports only a few weeks ago about the killing, finally, of the terrorist leader Alfonso Cano. The FARC operation goes on, but in a much reduced way, hidden away in the mountains, and President Santos has been the first to point out that its aims are pointless, and that it should come to peace and negotiation and have its grievances properly and democratically aired. He is taking a lead in, as I say, a new Colombia.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) (No. 2) Order 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the draft orders laid before the House on 15 September and 17 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 29th and 30th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 15 November.
Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak to Amendments 2, 3, and 4, which are also in my name. I can give an assurance to the House that those are the only amendments on the Marshalled List. These are a small number of necessary technical amendments to the Bill, which fulfil commitments I gave at Report stage in relation to the transitional period. I shall briefly explain why we need to make these amendments.
Amendment 1 is consequential to the amendment that was passed at Report to the reporting measure in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. Paragraph 10, as amended, provides that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by a police constable in relation to such reporting. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure that the definition of “TPIM decision” in Clause 17(3) includes a direction given by a constable in relation to a reporting measure.
Government Amendment 2 is, again, consequential to an amendment that was made to Schedule 1 at Report. Paragraph 1, as amended, provides that an individual subject to an overnight residence measure may be required to remain at, or within, their residence. This technical amendment makes an equivalent change in relation to a residence measure imposed on a person subject to an enhanced TPIM notice, imposed by virtue of a temporary enhanced TPIM order made under Clause 26 of the Bill.
Government Amendment 3, again, is necessary in consequence of an amendment made at Report. That amendment made it clear that an individual subject to a reporting measure under paragraph 10 may be required to comply with directions given by the police in relation to reporting. However, it introduced a small drafting inconsistency as it referred to directions given by a police officer rather than a constable, which is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. The two terms are intended to have the same meaning and the purpose of this amendment is to remove the inconsistency by substituting “constable” for “police officer”.
The final amendment, Amendment 4, returns to an issue on which I made an undertaking at Report. It will extend the transitional period provided by the Bill from 28 to 42 days. This is the period, following the coming into force of the Bill, during which the control orders in force immediately before commencement of the Bill will remain in force unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. It is intended to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition from the old to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIM system. However, as I made clear at Report, we have received advice from the police that as the transitional period will fall over Christmas and new year, a small extension to that period is necessary. This will assist the effective management of the process of transition over the holiday period. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward his first three amendments. However, I want to raise a couple of points in relation to Amendment 4. Essentially, it is to put a straightforward question to the noble Lord as to whether the 42 days that his amendment would now give for the transition period is sufficient. I do so in view of reports today that senior police officers believe that they are not fully prepared for the introduction of the new law to replace control orders.
During the passage of this Bill, we have had quite a number of debates about the principle of control orders and I do not seek to open up that question, as the House’s view is very clear on that matter. I have always recognised that the use of control orders should be a last option because they impose intrusive restrictions on individuals who in most cases will not have been convicted of a terrorism offence. But the fact is that their use was endorsed by the senior police officer who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place. Twice in the past few months the Home Secretary has argued, first in the case of CD and then in the case of BM, that the use of control orders, particularly the relocation measures, was necessary.
The Government are saying that we can move on from the use of these control orders because alternative measures that are either in the Bill or will be put in place alongside the Bill, including much greater surveillance, will provide the reassurance that is required. That is a big ask of the police and security services. It is surely significant that the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, said earlier this year:
“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 9.]
It is fair to ask the Minister whether the police and security services are now completely satisfied that they are now able to provide the additional surveillance and other measures that would allow control orders, particularly the exclusion measures contained within the current legislation, to move into abeyance as a result of the Bill. The fact that the Minister is appearing before us today to increase the transition period from 28 days to 42 days is not without significance, and of course was done on the advice of the police and security forces.
The question before us and the Government is whether a two-week extension is sufficient. Given all the challenges that we face in the area of security and potential terrorism, and given the Olympic Games, I ask the Minister—I am sure that this will be raised in the other place when the Bill goes back there—whether, even at this late stage, we ought not to consider giving the police and security services some more time in order to ensure that sufficient resources, people and training are indeed in place.
The reports this morning appear to suggest that there are senior officers who do not believe that they are sufficiently ready. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Can he give me some assurance that the security of our country is not being put at risk? Again I ask: would the Government not be better advised, before the Bill goes back to the other place, to legislate for the option of keeping control orders until we are certain and confident that the surveillance measures are fully in place and that sufficient officers are appointed and trained to do the job that they will be required to do?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I find myself unable to support the argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Indeed, it seems to be very much a repetition, on a rather smaller scale, of an argument that we heard over and over again on Report, all based on the views of one particular senior police officer. I for my part am completely satisfied with the view that has been taken by the Government. My general view is that the sooner we get rid of the old legislation, the better.
I have one other problem, which I do not know whether the Minister will be able to answer. It turns on paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 combined with paragraph 7 of Schedule 8. As I understand it, paragraph 2 provides that the old law will continue to apply to those who are currently under control orders. Paragraph 8 says that that will be so even though the 2005 Act would have expired, quite apart from this Bill repealing it. Is that the position? If so, when do the new provisions begin to apply to those who are currently under control orders? Every controlee will ask himself, “Have I been affected by this Bill or not?”. In particular, he will ask himself when the two-year period under Clause 5 starts in his case. It seems that the control order will continue to apply, but it cannot be kept in place indefinitely under the provisions of an Act that we have repealed.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, I have made it clear that the sooner control orders end the better. Will the Minister confirm that the extension to 42 days is not a matter of giving the police another two weeks to get their arrangements in order but because it became clear that the period of commencement would be within the Christmas and new year holiday period, which was not wholly convenient? Forty-two days would take the period into the new year as a matter of convenience. That is what I understood to be the explanation when we heard about this last week.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As always, my first advice to him would be not to believe everything that he reads in the papers. Having said that, I am grateful to him for raising the point. It is very important and it gives me the opportunity to explain why we are doing this. I set out what is behind Amendment 4 when I dealt with that.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether we were extending the detention period to 42 days just because the police asked for it or because the police asked for it because it was over Christmas and new year. I can assure her that that was the point that the police made to us: things will be slightly harder if this happens then than they would be if it happened on some other occasion.
The police service has worked very closely with both the Security Service and the Home Office throughout the legislative process to ensure that all the plans and preparations that are being made are tailored to the Bill in the appropriate manner and to ensure that everything is as it should be. The Metropolitan Police has also confirmed to the Home Secretary that it has put in place arrangements to manage that transition from control orders to TPIMs. Indeed, the Home Secretary received detailed briefing as recently as Monday from the Metropolitan Police on the transitional plans that had been drawn up. The Home Secretary is fully aware of what is going on. As I made clear on Report, we recently received advice from the Metropolitan Police that, in reviewing its plans as they were being developed, the extension of that period over Christmas and new year from 28 days to 42 days would be required to ensure that the necessary arrangements could be put in place. It is simply a safeguard to ensure that smooth transition.
In relation to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether the controlees themselves would ask questions about how they were being affected. I would prefer to write to the noble and learned Lord, if I may, to make sure that I get that absolutely right.
I end by giving an absolute assurance to the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the entire House that all we are doing is absolutely necessary. Whatever happens, we will not put the security of the country at risk. We have taken advice from the police and the security services on this matter. It was suggested that we should make this extension from 28 days to 42 days. That is what we are doing.
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:43 - Division on Amendment 49C - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 49C disagreed.
17:59 - Division on Amendment 50A. - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 239 - Amendment 50A disagreed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 46.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this Bill has already been on a long journey, and has changed a great deal during that journey. Since its Second Reading in this House in November last year, it has been subjected to rigorous challenge and scrutiny through Committee and Report before being sent to the Commons.
The Government listened carefully and adjusted the proposals in the Bill. We continued to consult, listen and adjust as it moved through the Commons. Most of the amendments to which I am speaking were introduced by the Government in the Commons as part of the continuing process of scrutiny and modification. It is a pleasure to follow in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Taylor, who did such an excellent and widely praised job of negotiating this Bill through its earlier stages in this House.
The Public Bodies Bill was notable during its time in this House not least for such contentious issues as Schedule 7 and the provisions on forests. However, it can and should be remembered as an outstanding example of the way in which the breadth and depth of experience in your Lordships’ House was used to improve a piece of legislation. I appreciate that this is a large group of amendments and that many noble Lords will be keen to move on to debate other issues in the Bill, and I will therefore set out as succinctly as I can the issues in these 46 amendments.
Amendments 1, 30, 31, 35 add co-operative and community benefit societies, as well as charitable incorporated organisations, to the definition of “eligible person” to which the functions or property of a body or officeholder can be transferred under the general order-making powers of the Bill. These amendments were welcomed by all sides in the Commons. I hope that they will also be welcomed here.
Amendments 2 and 3 require Ministers to secure Treasury consent before making an order that modifies an existing funding arrangement. This is in accordance with normal practice across the whole range of government.
Amendments 5 and 14 provide for there to be no requirement for a Minister or Welsh Minister to consult a body or office that is defunct. This does not exempt the Government from the need to consult—that is, to consult persons whom the Minister considers to be substantially affected and persons deemed to be appropriate—because the rest of the provisions in Clause 10 and 19 continue to apply. These amendments simply allow the Minister to lay a draft order without having to attempt to consult a body that has no members.
Amendment 21 adds stamp duty land tax to the list of relevant taxes in Clause 26. That clause limits the taxes that can be varied under the Bill to a list of relevant taxes. Stamp duty land tax was previously excluded from the list because there is an existing stamp duty tax relief for statutory reorganisations involving public bodies included in Section 66 of the Finance Act 2003. However, this relief does not cater for transfers to a non-statutory body for consideration. Stamp duty land tax should therefore now be included within the list of relevant taxes because there is a possibility that some transfer schemes will include land transactions falling outside the current stamp duty relief.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, given that the Minister referred to the amendment on regional development agencies, perhaps I could raise a point in relation to them. I am very disappointed that the Government did not change their mind on their approach to regional development agencies, particularly in my home region of the north-east where there has been strong support for an agency over a long period of time. Indeed, a former member of this House, Lord Burlison, to whom I pay tribute, was very active in setting up a home-grown regional development agency there before it was sanctioned by government. That shows the longevity of this issue in our region.
One area where the regional development agency was active was in supporting applications for European funding for regional projects in regions such as mine. It is not clear who will take over that role. A great deal of money is going begging at the moment. Given that we are in a time of financial stringency, it seems quite wrong that in an area such as the north-east, which has high unemployment, regional projects are not going ahead because no advice is available to bodies applying for regional funds, and nor are there matching funds. This very important issue is gaining prominence in the region. I would be grateful if the Minister would at least address it in his reply.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, this is an extraordinarily different Bill—as the Minister said—from the one that was published. Frankly, it was then an appalling Bill, with its unprecedented number of Henry VIII powers and with profound and chilling implications for many organisations that carry out public functions. I contrast the Bill as it was—the so-called cull of the quangos—with the proliferation of quangos, including the biggest quango in the world, that we will see as a result of the Health and Social Security Bill that is before us at present. Noble Lords applied themselves to the Bill in the best way that this House does, in a very impressive example of the House enacting its role in our legislative process properly and fully. As a result of the changes that this House made, including the removal of Schedule 7 and of those clauses that would have enabled the sale of the public forestry estate, the Bill left this Chamber a much improved piece of work—not with all the changes that we on these Benches would have liked, but much improved.
In part that was because the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, responded properly and appropriately to the concerns expressed by the House and by many people and organisations outside it. Further changes were made in the Commons—hence the number of amendments under consideration today—and I am pleased to say that we on these Benches warmly welcome Amendment 1, moved by the Minister. We also welcome the amendments relating to S4C, and some others. However, like my noble friend Lady Quin, I am deeply unhappy about the amendments relating to the RDAs. Their inclusion in the Bill encapsulates the topsy-turvy legislative process that the Government seemed bent on pursuing earlier in the Session. The saga of the abolition of the RDAs was a disgrace—a prime example of pre-legislative implementation that has had a profound and a negative impact on some regions, for example the north-east and the West Midlands. It is clear that not all RDAs were working as well as they should have been—but why abolish all of them just because one or two needed improvement?
Having said that, we will not vote against the amendments because we recognise that it is the end of the road, notwithstanding the paucity—or perhaps complete lack—of consultation on the issue, and the fact that there was extraordinary pre-legislative implementation of the abolition of RDAs, which we deeply regret. I hope that the Government will not pursue such policies in future but will seek to ensure that they legislate before they implement.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I join my noble friend in expressing appreciation of the way in which our colleague and noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach handled this Bill at an earlier stage. His careful consideration of the points that this House was making has considerably enhanced its quality. I do not dissent from the view that the Bill was ill-considered when it first reached us. Indeed, it is an exemplification of the point made by a number of committees of this House on the necessity for pre-legislative scrutiny in matters of such importance.
A change that is particularly welcome is the nature of the scrutiny of the orders that will be brought forward in secondary legislation in consequence of the Bill. I am happy to see that that has remained, enabling further consideration to be given to some of the particular proposals. I am also glad that the Government have given further thought to the future of S4C and have included in the Bill a duty requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that sufficient funding is available. There was widespread concern in Wales that the original proposal would result in a serious contraction of Welsh language broadcasting. It is to be hoped that this change, which I gather has been welcomed all round, will remove that anxiety.
The RDAs were a particularly remarkable happening which, like the changes, were introduced even before the legislation was before the House. It is too late to cry over that spilt milk, but it may be said that the work done by the RDAs, including scrutiny of the European Union regional development funding and where it should be directed, must be done with effectiveness. I hope that the new arrangements for that will be reported with openness and frequency to enable Parliament to consider how successful those changes have been. On the face of it, they were rather remarkable changes to have been made without much prior consultation. What happens to European funding in particular is not a matter that is considered only by us, but will be considered by European Union institutions to see whether the money has been properly spent.
This House has proved its effectiveness and capability, its broadness of vision and its particular knowledge in preparing to tackle some of the outstanding problems that the Bill generated. I cannot think of legislation that has been given more careful or extensive attention that the one before us today. That it was worth while is manifested by the amendments that my noble friend has announced, and which were broadly approved in another place, and which by and large—indeed, almost universally—are to be welcomed. I hope, however, that such legislation will never be introduced again so soon after a general election, bouncing Parliament into decisions of such fundamental importance over such a broad spectrum of our national life.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I would like to underline what my noble friend has said about Sianel Pedwar Cymru. It has caused considerable delight in Wales that the Welsh authority will now have the funding from the Government without compromising the status and editorial independence of the channel, which gives so much entertainment in Wales.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, could I ask the Minister to explain further the purpose of Amendment 55, which adds Dover Harbour Board to Schedule 5? It is a bit extraordinary to include one port from among 120 or so in this country, most of which are trust ports. I declare an interest as a commissioner of a trust port in Cornwall. Why add one port to a list including the Environment Agency, British Waterways Board and all these other bodies that we have debated, on the basis that the local MP thought that it was a good idea? Is this a precedent for local MPs around the country to come up with ideas for privatisation or mutualisation of their ports, and to come before the Ministers saying “Let us add this to the list and have fun”? As the Minister said, there is a perfectly good route for privatisation of ports in the Ports Act 1991. I would be grateful if he could explain the purpose behind this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her kind words about the way in which the Government have dealt with this Bill. Unavoidably, a commitment to prune the proliferation of public bodies over the last two generations meant that the Bill was very complex. Therefore, I believe that a period of digestion in both Houses was justified. It was a complex Bill and we have done our best to digest the criticism of it.
Anticipating that there would be criticism concerning RDAs, I spent some time last weekend reading up on regional growth theory and a whole range of other things. I am still not entirely sure whether I hold to the spatial equilibrium theory or to the agglomeration growth theory, or whether I think that economics claims to be unduly scientific and sometimes does not entirely understand what is happening on the ground.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that this Government are strongly committed to reducing regional disparities. None of us can be happy that the gap between London and the south-east and, above all, the north and north-west of England, in terms of incomes, house prices and even life expectancy, has widened so much under the successive Governments of different parties over the last 20 to 25 years. The regional policies of the last Government did not reverse that trend. As noble Lords will know, we are now in the process of setting up a regional growth fund and local economic partnerships based on city regions rather than the wider regions. I have to say, looking at the Yorkshire region, that the wider Leeds region is rather different from the wider Hull region, but that is an area that we shall continue to debate as these new measures are put in place. More will be announced in the autumn Financial Statement.
On the question of the European regional development fund, the Government have of course paid attention to it as it is an important part of this. The programmes will now be guided by local management committees which oversee ERDF investment and assess progress. These committees draw their membership from government departments and a wide range of local partners, including local authorities, LEPs, educational institutions, the voluntary sector and members of the business community. So the LEPs will play an active role in the delivery of European regional development funds, both through their membership of the local management committees and as potential applicants for funding. I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not intend to let that pot of money stay unused.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about Dover Harbour Board. One has to say that Dover is a rather larger and more important harbour than some of those in Cornwall with which he is concerned, so the argument for making an exception of Dover partly rests upon the importance of that port compared to many others. I accept that to some extent this is an anomaly, the result of an extremely powerful and well organised local campaign. We shall see how far this provides an innovation that may spread elsewhere. The noble Lord may think that a Conservative MP supporting a people’s port proposal is slightly counterintuitive. That is the degree of innovation that we are concerned with but, again, we shall see how this develops. There was very powerful feeling within the town, and in a democratic country one should occasionally—perhaps frequently—take the strength of local opinion into account.
Having answered some of the points raised, I beg to move that these amendments be now agreed to.
Lord McNally
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 47.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, to assist the House, I will move the Motion on Amendment 47 formally because that will enable the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to move his Amendment 47A, to which I intend to speak in support.
Amendment 47A (to the Motion on Amendment 47)
Lord Ramsbotham
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 47, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, as the Minister has already announced the Government’s intentions, which he informed me about earlier this afternoon, I do not intend to detain the House with the contents of the speech that I would otherwise have given.
I would like to thank and congratulate the Government on the decision that they have come to. By deciding to retain the Youth Justice Board, they have provided a service to two separate organisations and bodies: first, the youth justice system as a whole, which has benefited from the leadership and direction of the Youth Justice Board since 1999; and, secondly, the Ministry of Justice itself, because it has retained an independent body capable of directing and overseeing the youth justice system on its behalf that is accountable and responsible to Ministers. This is particularly important in the light of the riots in the summer, because during that period the Youth Justice Board played an enormously important part both in liaising with, overseeing and helping the youth offending teams out in the community and in overseeing the introduction and reception into custody of people who required a great deal of help.
An interesting by-product of that is that people have realised that there is one group of young people in the criminal justice system who are not receiving the degree of oversight they could, and they are referred to as young adults, particularly those in the age group 18 to 21. I remember complaining about nothing being done for them in my thematic review, Young Prisoners, in 1998. There has been nothing done for them since. They are the poor relation and they are showing it. In the Youth Justice Board, the Ministry of Justice has a trained and experienced group of people who could take on this responsibility and help it out of a problem that is in urgent need of resolution.
Having said that, because all the reasons for my disagreement were discussed when the Bill came through the House, I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I too would like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I do not know whether this is career enhancing or not, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his influence in his department. I do not know what he slipped into the water at the Ministry of Justice, but he might like to give a supply of it to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, so that he can do the same at Richmond House in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill.
I pay tribute to the Youth Justice Board under the leadership of Frances Done and John Drew, the chief executive. They have shown enormous resilience during this rather lengthy process in which a sword of Damocles has been hanging over them as to their future. It is a tribute to their professionalism that they have kept going and have continued to provide a sterling service. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, during the London riots they did a good job and dealt with some very difficult situations. I think the whole House would want to pay tribute to their work.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in the briefest speech yet, I wish merely to say that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 troubled Ministers.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, we are absolutely delighted with this news. It is the triumph of sweet reason and I congratulate the Minister on what has been his absolute grit.
Just to say a brief word, it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the work of the Youth Justice Board as it is currently operating. It works in the interests of the most vulnerable, difficult and challenging children. In doing so, the board is meeting the interests of us all as its work has implications for both our society today and the nature of our society tomorrow, of which these children will be part. It is also difficult to exaggerate the value and quality of the organisation that the YJB has become over the past few years under Frances Done and John Drew. Further, it advises the Secretary of State for Justice on the operation of the youth justice system. It is the overarching and co-ordinating body for the secure estate for children, for youth offending teams and, increasingly, for other government departments and agencies in both the voluntary and private sectors that make provision for children who offend. This is a great development and another reason why we should rejoice in the continued life of the Youth Justice Board as we know it.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, while the Minister, Crispin Blunt, already has wide-ranging powers of oversight in statute, he needs the wisdom and advice of a highly experienced and knowledgeable arm’s-length body that is expert in the field of children to inform and advise him. It is excellent to learn that he will continue to have that help from the YJB. I was going to say a bit more, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the board’s remarkable success in keeping the show on the road and doing such extraordinary work during the riots. It is a story that is not well understood or loudly told, but it has been absolutely extraordinary.
I end by saying that we are delighted and grateful that the work of the YJB can continue. It is the best possible news for the children whose challenges and needs can still be met, for their families and for society as a whole. We are the richer for this decision.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to all those who have already applauded the Government on their sterling efforts and on seeing good sense. As one of those who perhaps was responsible for gently urging the Government to turn, I think it is only right and proper to add my many congratulations to the Government on taking this important step—not least because, having had the advantage of the help, advice and support of the YJB, I know that Ministers in the Ministry of Justice will quickly come to realise that they could never have made a better decision.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I also want briefly to thank the Minister for this announcement and to say how grateful I am to the Government for the careful way that they have listened to the concerns of noble Lords, for the meetings with the Secretary of State and for their attempts to adjust their plans in order to meet those concerns. I am extremely glad to hear this good news today. There is much more work to be done. As the population of children in custody reduces, as it has been, those remaining in custody are more difficult and challenging, so we need the best possible systems and approaches in place to deal with these higher levels of need. Again, I would like to express my thanks to the Minister and the Secretary of State for this decision.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I too was going to speak about heaven and sinners, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elton. But I would like to put on record that the sinner in this case is not the Minister, who I know will have done a fantastic job in persuading the department of the folly of its ways. The Minister himself is certainly not a sinner; he is more heavenly.
We on these Benches are absolutely delighted that the Government are doing the right thing. It might seem churlish, but I have to say that I wonder why it has taken a whole year for them to reach that decision. It was a whole year of insecurity, not just for the Youth Justice Board but for the youth justice system itself. As we know, the Youth Justice Board does a splendid job. By any standard of measurement it is a success story. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others have said, following this summer’s disturbances —when there is, properly, great consideration being given to the need to tackle youth crime—the need for this excellent body is even greater. We should heed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and look at the increased potential of this particular body in the difficult times in which we live.
We should pay tribute to the work of the Youth Justice Board itself, but also to the work and the voice of noble Lords all around this Chamber, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, my noble friend Lord Warner, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and others, all of whom have played a huge role in persuading the Government that it would have been wrong to abolish this excellent board. Long may it continue in its excellent work, which is to the benefit of the youth of this country, but also to the benefit of each and every citizen of this country.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will certainly wish to see in Hansard the description of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as heavenly. I will see what can be done about getting the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, expunged, because they definitely would be career threatening.
I intervene briefly to make it clear that, as I said at the beginning, we will not be asking the House to oppose the noble Lord’s amendment, and therefore ask to insist upon the amendment to remove the Youth Justice Board from Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Bill. Noble Lords will recall that this House removed the YJB from the Bill on Report in March. Subsequently, a government amendment reintroduced it to the Bill in the other place. The Government realise that the future of the Youth Justice Board is an emotive issue. It is an issue in which this House has always taken the closest interest. It has therefore not been a surprise that noble Lords have scrutinised and challenged our plans for the future governance of youth justice.
I want to be absolutely clear that this Government remain committed to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. We have never proposed to remove youth offending teams, nor have we ever proposed to dismantle the dedicated secure estate for young people or to effect a takeover of youth justice by the National Offender Management Service. We always intended it to be kept separate. The Government have consistently made clear that we want to build on the strengths of the Youth Justice Board. We recognise that since it was established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Youth Justice Board has helped to transform the youth justice system. It oversaw the establishment of local youth offending teams, and has fulfilled an important role in reducing offending and reoffending among young people. It has also driven up standards in the discrete secure estate for young people.
During the debate on the future of youth justice, the Government set out to persuade Parliament that now that an effective youth justice system was in place, the oversight provided by the YJB was no longer required and direct ministerial accountability for youth justice should be restored. However, we have listened to the debates in both Houses during the passage of the Bill. We have listened to the points raised by respondents to the MoJ consultation and in the responses to our Green Paper. We acknowledged that there was considerable opposition to our proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. I must be clear, though, that the abolition has never been about saving money—the MoJ does not have major savings contingent on its abolition. That is why we are no longer pursuing the abolition of the Youth Justice Board as part of this Bill.
The Government still believe that there should be more direct ministerial accountability and involvement in youth justice. We believe, as many in this House believe, that there is a strong case for reform of the Youth Justice Board, and we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Public Bodies Bill. For example, we have wide-ranging powers already open to us under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and other powers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and I think at an earlier date my noble friend Lord Elton, referred to. We will consider whether we can use these powers in the context of more direct ministerial accountability but will do so in consultation with the Youth Justice Board and with the intention of working harmoniously with it.
I also have to put on record that the Youth Justice Board will remain within the context of the Cabinet Office’s policy on public bodies and its stipulation that all non-departmental public bodies should be reviewed at least once every three years. I will also remind the Cabinet Office that your Lordships’ House will continue to keep a close interest in the Youth Justice Board, so if it wants to back into that bacon-slicer again in three years’ time, it is up to the Cabinet Office.
I know that at these times this House can get very self-congratulatory, but tribute has been paid and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, read out the roll of honour. I have been in this House long enough to know that when the Ramsbothams, the Eltons and the Linklaters coalesce with the Warners, you are in trouble as a Minister. That was true in the previous Administration as well. The other point that has come through in contribution after contribution is that the real influence and power in all this has been the reputation of the YJB itself. It has been able to call on friends in its time of need because of that reputation. I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid on all sides of the House to its response to the riots during the summer and the very effective way in which it dealt with the problems of young people at that time.
I assure the House that we will continue to work closely with the YJB on all our youth justice priorities. Indeed, I want to put on record, as others have done and as I did in Questions earlier in the year about this, a sincere tribute to the work of Frances Done, the chair, and John Drew, the chief executive, and all the staff of the Youth Justice Board, who have carried on meeting the needs of the most vulnerable groups of young people over the last year while under the threat of abolition. I fully appreciate that that is not a happy position to be in. However, I can also say with absolute certainty that, even through this difficult period, the working relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board has been maintained effectively and at the highest standard. That is a tribute to the leadership and the staff of the board. The Government therefore support the noble Lord in his amendment and ask that this House insists on this amendment as passed.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive nature and the spirit of his reply. I am very glad that he recognised that this House maintains an interest in the Youth Justice Board, because the House has a great deal of interest in expertise in the development of young people. I am very glad that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned by name Frances Done, the chairman, and John Drew, the chief executive, because during this period they have done two things: first, they have shown leadership of the system itself; and, secondly, they have show leadership of the board and the staff working for them during very uncertain times. They deserve the thanks not just of this House but of the nation. I do not propose to keep the House any longer because, thanks all those who have contributed, we have covered all the issues, including the thanks and congratulations to the Minister. I therefore beg to move that the House agree with the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 48.
Lord McNally
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49.
Amendment 49A (to the Motion on Amendment 49)
Lord Newton of Braintree
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49, leave out from “agree” to end and insert “disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 49 but do propose Amendment 49B in lieu”.
“Conditions on the exercise of powers under sections 2 to 5
(1) Unless the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are met, a Minister may not make any order—
(a) under section 2 to merge the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the Civil Justice Council;
(b) under section 3 to modify the constitutional arrangements of the Civil justice Council;
(c) under section 4 to modify the funding arrangements of the Civil Justice Council; or
(d) under section 5 to modify or transfer functions of the Civil Justice Council.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) the Minister has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out in detail how the Government proposes that the functions of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the Civil Justice Council will be carried out in future;
(b) 60 days have elapsed between the laying of a report under paragraph (a) and the laying of any order for any of the purposes set out in subsection (1) above;
(c) the Minister has laid before Parliament a response to any report of any Committee of either House of Parliament on the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council or the Civil Justice Council published within two years of this Act coming into force; and
(d) two years have passed since the coming into force of this Act.”
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am as delighted as anybody by what has happened on the previous amendment. I am also pleased that a concession has been offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, though I do not yet know what her reaction to it will be. I bound to say that that leaves me feeling slightly plaintive as the only one to whose modest concerns the Government appear to be unwilling to make any move at all. I have down an amendment in lieu but that is not the one that I am moving. I made it clear to the Minister earlier this morning that I would only move the amendment if it had any attraction to the Government as allowing them to make a move in my direction.
Lord McNally
I am advised that if the noble Lord is not going to move these, he should now speak to the amendment that he is going to move, which is Amendment 49C.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I am sorry. Because of the complexities of this process, on which I had taken advice earlier, that is certainly right. I am not moving Amendment 49A, a point on which I had given the Minister notice earlier. I intend to move Amendment 49C.
Lord Newton of Braintree
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 49C, with which I also wish to speak to Amendments 50A, 51A and 54A, which are related to the other amendments in what I regard as a group.
These amendments are designed to preserve some amendments inserted into the Bill by this House on an amendment of mine at Report—an amendment on which I had strong support from various parts of the House, including my noble and learned friends Lord Mackay and Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who I am delighted to see in his place. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is manifestly not in his place, because I am. I do not want to read too much into that; he supported me before and I have not checked what his view would have been on this occasion, though I hope he would have continued to support me.
The purpose of my amendments was not to frustrate the Government’s original intention to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, if that is what they continue to wish to do, but simply to give them scope for greater flexibility if they wanted to do something more creative, on reflection. Let me be quite explicit in respect of the Civil Justice Council, which is named in some of these amendments. I say this particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I had neither wish nor intention to damage the Civil Justice Council in any way, but I have long thought that there could be scope for some rationalisation between these bodies, and I am encouraged by the fact that the Master of the Rolls appeared to indicate that view in his remarks to the annual conference of the AJTC last week.
I shall not rehearse the arguments, as I set them out pretty fully on Report and noble Lords are slightly past wanting to hear them. But I shall make 10 points. First, good administrative justice—a fair system accepted by citizens for resolving disputes between the citizen and the state—is part of the bedrock of a society like ours. The second is that the Ministry of Justice has a sort of responsibility in this area, but its main specific responsibility is simply for that part of it that is covered by the Tribunals Service, not by much other essential machinery. It is not responsible for local authority tribunals, including those very important ones, to many citizens, that deal with education, exclusion and appeal matters and other local authority issues. It has no policy responsibility for ombudsmen, who are a key part of this whole set-up, and it has no policy responsibility for decision making and complaints handling of individual government departments, which is another crucial factor in administrative justice.
My next point is that the Council on Tribunals, now the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, is agreed to have played a major part over 50 years in improving a system of administrative justice that was bordering on a disgrace in the middle 1950s. There have been major improvements to which the council, under both titles, has contributed, not least the creation of the new Tribunals Service.
I am not sure which point this is—I have 10 in all. My next point is that the creation of the wider remit of the reformed Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council was fully supported less than four years ago by every group in this House, including the then Conservative opposition Front Bench and the then Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So to an extent this is going back to something that was committed to very shortly before the election. There was no manifesto commitment to its abolition and no mandate that can be claimed for its abolition.
My next point is that a key ingredient was the need for an independent voice for the interests and needs of the user of administrative justice systems. That cannot and would not be done by the Ministry of Justice—by people whose primary day-to-day accountability is to the Minister, not to the user or the stakeholder.
My next point is regarding the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whom people may like or not, but the Ombudsman’s comments on the proposed abolition in relation to the consultation document is worth a guinea per minute and quite short. I am not going to read it all out, but one paragraph of it says that her extensive contact with the Ministry of Justice in its various guises over many years gives her no confidence whatever in the ability of the Ministry to assume the functions of the AJTC. She goes on to say that however well-meaning and diligent individual officials may be, the Ministry simply lacks the institutional history, capability and technical knowledge to do that. I say hear, hear to that.
Then there is a devolution angle, which the Minister may not even have thought about. The Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council has a Scottish Committee and has always had one, based in Edinburgh. Since its reincarnation as the AJTC, it also has a Welsh Committee. Both these bodies are valued by the devolved Administrations. Nobody has made any decisions, but the Scottish Administration is looking at the possibility of creating a civil justice council, embracing the work of the Scottish Committee of the AJTC. Northern Ireland, which at present has nothing much at all in this field, is also looking at a model of that kind. From what I was told on Thursday, Wales, too, is looking at a council that would take on the work of the Welsh Committee. Would it not be ridiculous if, as a result of this, England—which started all this—became the only part of the United Kingdom without a body to provide what has been provided in England by the council and tribunals of the AJTC for more than 50 years in respect of oversight and a voice for administrative justice? I think it would be almost unbelievable.
Finally, not everybody will know—I hope the Minister does, certainly his departmental colleague, Mr Djanogly, does—that the Public Administration Select Committee in another place is conducting an inquiry into this abolition proposal. Having attended the hearing yesterday, I make the following points. First, the Ministry, according to the Minister in the other place, Mr Djanogly, as I heard him, intends to take in all the AJTC staff alongside building some modest increase in its own previously non-existent capability even to offer policy advice in this area. I must say that casts huge doubt on the savings figures we have been given, and it was clear yesterday that nobody knows what those figures are.
Secondly, it appears to be accepted by everyone that the MoJ cannot replace much of the work that the AJTC does, especially on the user front and in creating effective stakeholder relationships on a wide scale, as represented by the conference that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, attended and spoke at with great distinction last week. I do not believe the MoJ can do that. I do not know what the report will say, of course, because it has not yet been written, but from what I heard yesterday, I think it is highly likely that the Public Administration Select Committee will say that the Government need to look again at this. If they do, that means that an important committee in another place will in effect be saying that another place itself needs the opportunity for further reflection on this proposal. I suggest that your Lordships should give it that opportunity and I intend, subject only to the miracle of the Minister saying something that I do not expect him to say, to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I had better intervene now so that I do not keep my noble friend Lord Newton in suspense for too long. Alas, as he knows, because we have discussed this on a number of occasions, I am not able to deliver the kind of assurances that I was able to deliver for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether he is seeking to wind up the debate?
Lord McNally
No, I am not seeking to wind up the debate. I thought that it would be useful for me to say something now so that there would be something for the noble Lord to attack me on afterwards—and then I can attack him after that. No, I thought it would be useful at this stage to state where we are coming from because, as I say, I had a number of conversations with my noble friend Lord Newton. I had a meeting with him and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and I took their concerns back to my colleagues.
However, I have to make it clear that the purpose of the Government today is to restate their intention to abolish the AJTC outright, using the powers in Clause 1. I also make it clear that the Government have no intention of merging the AJTC with the Civil Justice Council. There is no appetite within Government or the senior judiciary to add to the CJC to the Bill. I am pleased that following a Division in Committee, noble Lords agreed to the proposal to abolish the AJTC. I am conscious that what my noble friend Lord Newton has been trying to do—I still use the term noble friend, as I hope he will—is to give the Government some wriggle room on this matter. Sadly, as I have just explained, the Government do not want wriggle room on this matter but to abolish the AJTC.
The Government’s rationale for abolition has been made in both Houses and on a number of occasions. The Government are committed to this reform because the AJTC is an advisory body whose functions are either no longer required or, in the case of its policy functions, are more properly performed by the Government themselves. The abolition of the AJTC will have no direct impact on judicial independence or—
Lord Borrie
My Lords, an intervention by the Minister may well have been useful but he is using every sentence he now utters in opposition to any move of any kind. Does that mean that there is no point in any of us intervening further in this debate after he sits down?
Lord McNally
Absolutely not. I have heard Ministers make such speeches in this House but I will take advice from the Clerks. I am very willing to sit down and to listen to all the debate but the idea was to make it clear where we were coming from. As is shown by the Marshalled List, the Government do not intend to accept any of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton. That is abundantly clear. Whether the noble Lord wants to hear that at the end of the debate or now is a matter of choice but I will look to the Clerk for guidance.
I understand that if I want to speak early for the assistance of the House, it is fine. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will accept that and that we can go on. I do not see where it disrupts the debate and I look forward to his contribution, as I always do.
As I say, the abolition of the AJTC will have no direct impact on judicial independence or judicial decision-making. I want to make it clear that the AJTC is not a tribunal or any other form of judicial body. While it has observing rights, it is not an inspectorate and does not have the range of monitoring and reporting powers that an inspectorate would expect to have. The AJTC was set up to advise the Lord Chancellor, Ministers of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals on administrative justice. One of the council’s functions is to keep under review the constitution and working of tribunals. However, we have moved on from a structure in which tribunals were funded by the department whose decisions they reviewed. We now have the unified Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service supporting the majority of central government tribunals and ensuring that tribunal users have access to timely and effective justice. Previously disparate management, procedures, appeals and funding mechanisms are now administered centrally by the Ministry of Justice. There are also a number of ways by which ministerial accountability is assured for the performance of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, further reducing the need for the kind of oversight that the AJTC provides.
The Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining and developing its overview of the end-to-end administrative justice system. It is working with other departments and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales to ensure that there continues to be a UK-wide overview of administrative justice. It also has close links with the Cabinet Office, which leads on ombudsman policy.
Much is made of the AJTC’s ability to offer independent advice and I understand the principle; it is an important one. However, independence must be weighed against the effectiveness of such bodies if being so far removed from the centre means that they lack the ability to influence and drive change. I urge this House to view the Government’s proposals for administrative justice policy in this light.
It is my belief that officials are well placed to provide Ministers with objective, expert and impartial policy advice on administrative justice matters. That is what officials do in every other justice policy area. Officials have forged links with stakeholders in the administrative justice field that will enhance their role and capability. Indeed, the department intends to establish a group of administrative justice experts and key stakeholders, particularly those who represent the views of users. In practice, that will likely include those who practise or have practised in relevant fields. Such a group will provide a valuable forum for sharing information and best practice and will be used to test policy ideas and, initially, to help prioritise the administrative justice work programme.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
In the light of the concerns that have been forcefully expressed on a number of occasions in this House, will my noble friend consider whether the new arrangements could be made rather more transparent than has been the case in respect of some ministries in revealing what the consequences of these inquiries are? Perhaps an annual report could be produced for a number of years so that we can judge how effective the proposed changes are in the event.
Lord McNally
I am happy to take that suggestion back. It sounds a reasonable idea although I do not know what the cost would be. All I can promise my noble friend is that I will take it back and let him know, via a letter that I can put in the Library of the House, what the reaction is to that. The AJTC’s budget for the 2010-11 financial year was £1.3 million, compared with the Civil Justice Council’s budget of a relatively modest £312,000. That reflects the fact that AJTC members are paid while CJC members are not.
So it is for reasons of efficiency, economy and effectiveness that the Government are not seeking to modify any of these proposals. There is no other public body that could easily take on the functions of the CJC, which is why we retain it. However, I insist that the reasons for abolishing the AJTC are as sound now as they were when this House took that decision some months ago. Although I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for offering us the wriggle room, it is not wriggle room that the Lord Chancellor wishes to take advantage of. He wishes for this House to confirm the decision that it initially took and proceed as soon as possible with the abolition of the AJTC. I hope that is of help to noble Lords in the contributions that they want to make to this debate.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I wonder if I might add my support to each of the points made by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Newton. With the greatest respect, the Government have misunderstood why his latest proposal would be very positive indeed. The approach that has been developed over the period for which I have been concerned with administrative law in different capacities is to see that access to and the administration of justice are both significantly influenced by what happens in tribunals. Therefore, there has been a policy of ensuring that there is no geological gap between what the tribunals and other bodies of that sort, including the ombudsmen, do and what the courts do.
At various levels and in various parts of the administrative justice system to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the Minister referred, there are now judges in place who play a leading role either directly or indirectly. They play it indirectly through the increasing incidence of direct appeals to the Court of Appeal from certain bodies and, where that is not possible, through judicial review. It is important to the rule of law that these bodies should be doing what is required of them.
What we have found is that both the criminal and civil courts need a council of the sort that the Civil Justice Council provides—one that brings together those who have personal and direct experience of the sharp end of running these bodies as chairmen, deputy chairmen or in some other such capacity, and very experienced practitioners. They should provide a brains trust, which could feed back from these bodies into the justice system as a whole. They can then perform their immediate responsibilities of improving the criminal or civil law, taking into account the position of these other bodies, and of improving the quality of what happens in the bodies to which I have referred,
The Minister made a case that all this could be done by the Ministry of Justice. No one has greater affection or admiration for the Ministry of Justice than I have, but I have to admit that there are certain fields in which practitioners have a greater insight than the ministry has. In the field of criminal justice, which is very important, and in the field of civil justice generally, which is equally important, it is now accepted that there should be a council, in addition to what the ministry can provide, to provide this extra insight into the subject. It is no answer to say that this insight can be achieved by the Ministry of Justice because such a body would supplement the ministry’s task and shine a light on this important area of providing justice that would otherwise not be available.
There has been a great improvement in the Bill—thanks to the debates on it—regarding the ability of the Ministry of Justice to listen. Having listened in turn to what the Minister had to say, I would to say to him, with the greatest deference and respect, that although there has been listening there has been no understanding of the nature of the body being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. For the reasons that he gave, I urge caution before deciding that this body should receive the chop. It should not be a sacrificial lamb.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, we have just heard a most helpful intervention from the noble and learned Lord because he has put the issue of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council into context. It is concerned with that part of the judicial scene that consists largely of tribunals—under one name or another—that seek to do justice as between the individual and the state. It is a field of judicial work that has become increasingly significant and understood by the public and the courts—because sometimes, through judicial review or appeal, the courts have had to hear cases that have been attended to first by tribunals.
During our earlier debates in this House, I proposed an amendment that was, I should say to the Minister, only narrowly lost. It would have deleted this body from the list of bodies in the Bill that were for the chop, as the noble and learned Lord put it. I was grateful then for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, other noble and learned Lords in this House, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree with me, but one of the disadvantages of our debates on this subject is that the body is in the wrong place alphabetically. The trouble is that because its initial is A, it came at the beginning of a great list of bodies. Therefore, when seeking an amendment whereby this body would be deleted from the schedule of those bodies that were for the chop, we had to have a debate and vote fairly early on in our discussions. With respect to all those who took part, I do not think that the body received the justice it deserved to ensure its continued existence.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have just emphasised the significance and importance of the AJTC and the fact that it should not be abolished because it provides an independent voice on matters which are of tremendous importance to this relatively new set of bodies—we are talking about 50 or 100 years but that is new in the law—which deal with disputes between the individual and the state.
There is a case to be made for independent advice from a body such as the AJTC, formerly known as the Council on Tribunals, which had a slightly narrower remit. Its significance was that there were practitioners of all kinds who were independent and represented the customer—the ordinary person appearing in these cases. Those practitioners included academic lawyers. I state an interest in that I once was such, but they provided useful input into the Council on Tribunals, in part because they knew something about the ways in which these cases were decided in other countries. Therefore, a knowledge of these matters and how other countries deal with them was brought to bear in the Council on Tribunals.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has stated very clearly that, while of course the assistance and guidance of civil servants in the department is invaluable and essential, useful advice can come from elsewhere, especially when it is given not by a narrow group but with each person representing him or herself on a whole range of interests concerning tribunals. Those people come together and discuss the vital maters affecting tribunals, and that will be lost if the AJTC is abolished.
The attempt by some of us to preserve this body in some form at an earlier stage was defeated, and I have perhaps been biased in my remarks as to how that came about. However, it would be of great service to the community and to the rule of law in this country if we took a step today through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to ask the Commons to look at the matter again.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the policy of the law over the past few years has been to focus more attention on tribunals and to do so because they are quicker and cheaper than the courts and they often have expertise that judges, for all their qualities, do not have. Surely we should be very slow indeed to abolish the body which will help to ensure that this policy of the law is promoted efficiently, economically and in an independent manner.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to those already so ably spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. He mentioned that the civil justice and criminal justice systems are already covered by a council, one for each. Noble Lords will know that approximately 63,000 cases come before the civil justice courts and that approximately 223,000 come before the criminal courts, but 650,000 cases come before tribunals. Although this afternoon we have talked loosely about administrative law, one has to understand that this is the meat and drink of the lives of ordinary men and women in our country. We are talking about the benefits system, immigration and all the issues that touch the lives of many poor people who do not have the wherewithal to go anywhere else. Therefore, this council’s role is at least, if not more, important than the councils that are being preserved for the civil and criminal justice systems. It is acknowledged by all who know the council’s work that it is a very precious resource. It safeguards the situation for the citizen, and in these days of fiscal austerity the need for it has never been greater.
Legal aid is being threatened. The proposed restrictions are severe. If implemented, the citizen’s need for an avenue through which administrative acts by the Government of the day can be challenged will be enhanced. The question is: if this amendment is not passed and if the Government are not asked to think again, how do they propose to retain the independence that has always been deserved and needed by the individual? How then do we ensure the transparency and fairness which we have all come to recognise as an integral part of administrative justice? I ask the noble Lord to think very seriously indeed about whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is not a lifeline which the Government should now seize.
When dealing with mistakes—and I honestly believe that this is a very grave mistake indeed—Confucius gave the following advice, and I will read it just to help the Minister, who may be minded to accept it:
“Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes. But a man who has committed a mistake and does not correct it is making another mistake”.
I suggest that Confucius was right, and that the noble Lord should avoid that trap.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord has already given his views. He has had a little time perhaps to reflect on the debate, and one can only hope that having heard the debate he might come back a second time with a somewhat more responsive point of view than we originally heard. I certainly, from the opposition Benches, once again support the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on this. I thought he made the case eloquently once again for the value of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the impact for good that it has on the performance of many government departments in Whitehall. In particular, I pay tribute to the council for its focus on what it describes as improving initial decision-making as it affects members of the public. That is surely the importance of the council; it is concerned with administrative processes in relation to members of the public.
My noble and learned friend Lady Scotland referred to legal aid. It is interesting to reflect—indeed, my noble friend referred to this earlier in our debates—on the council’s comments on the impact on legal aid. I am not raising the issue of legal aid; the point is that the council has said that it believes that the Government bear responsibility for,
“causing many of the appeals in the administrative justice system … through poor … decision-making, poor communications … delay or through overly complex and … incomprehensible legislation and regulations”.
The council has been making these points for over 50 years and it has undoubtedly led to improvements in these administrative processes. There is clearly still some way to go. From what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, we are to believe that everything will be all right because his department will be able to analyse the performance of different government departments, comment on them and encourage them to improve their administrative processes.
Is it realistic to think that the Ministry of Justice will be able to make that kind of statement and identify faults in administrative processes in other departments of government, let alone in itself? Of course, the Ministry of Justice will have to be subject to some kind of scrutiny by the team of officials that will be based in the Minister's department. The history of trying to influence government departments in this area surely shows that an external advisory body would be much more likely to have an impact, particularly if it were able to make public statements about the faults it finds in decision-making processes, than would a unit in the department of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when one gets advice from people ranging from Confucius to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, it is necessary to take a pause. However, I would like to House to return to the first principles of the Public Bodies Bill. The intention was to look at a range of bodies that had grown up to perform various functions. The philosophy behind it is one that I support. Over the past 20 to 30 years, Governments have got into the habit of passing the buck. When in doubt, one should set up an advisory body, an inquiry or a tsar—anything to prevent a Minister having to stand at the Dispatch Box and take responsibility for something that has been done. It is partly against that trend that the Public Bodies Bill set off on its journey some months ago.
Although it is always very tempting to take up the kind of options offered by my noble friend Lord Newton, as I said in my helpful opening guidance remarks the Lord Chancellor and the other place have listened. Both Houses came to a firm conclusion on abolition and therefore I am not tempted to go down the side road offered by my noble friend, however attractive it might be. We have mentioned the public expenditure aspect of this. Whenever one addresses problems, there is a tendency to say, “It is only £1.3 million”. However, that is more expenditure. Perhaps I may humbly say that you always know when a lawyer is insulting you because they are very polite about it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I wish no disrespect to the noble Lord. I have just two comments. First, I wish he had taken part in our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill. His noble friend Lord Howe is busily seeking to hand over all responsibility for the NHS to the biggest quango there will ever be. Secondly, on the question of cost, will he reflect on the evidence that the council gives about poor decision-making, poor communication and delay because of overly complex or incomprehensible rules? Surely, the impact of the council is to help the Government to reduce expenditure. Does he think that his department will be publishing advice like that on the performance of itself and other government departments?
Lord McNally
Indeed. One of the thrusts of our argument is that the sooner the Government get back into the habit of taking responsibility for their own inefficiencies, the better. My department and HMCTS are already working closely with DWP on a range of initiatives to improve initial decision-making. It is about time that government departments took responsibility and I concede a whole range of areas where initial decision-making is poor and causes expense. But that is not a reason to pass the buck to some other body. The job is for government to get on with improving the efficiencies.
The Ministry of Justice is well placed to ensure that administrative justice is a key part of the wider justice reform agenda. We are committed to developing a strategic UK-wide approach. We are also committed to ensuring that the right decisions are made the first time. When disputes arise we will provide proportionate, timely and cost-effective solutions and drive ongoing improvements in the system. The MoJ already has strong links with the devolved Governments and other government departments and is already demonstrating the benefits of this. The department is currently considering priority areas and the resources needed to take them forward. At present there is a core team consisting of staff of a range of grades which has access to the wider justice policy group. The team can freely call on legal and analytical experts.
Other issues were raised. Any idea of a merger with the CJC has been ruled out by the judiciary. I mentioned in my initial intervention that we would establish a group of administrative justice experts and key stakeholders to draw on their views. As for the Public Accounts Committee inquiry, my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly gave evidence yesterday. We will certainly take note of any recommendations that the committee makes. However, I do not think that it will remove the central piece of our analysis, which is that the AJTC is an advisory body that is no longer required in the field of administrative justice. Robust governance and oversight arrangements are now in place with regard to tribunals and the development of administrative justice policy is properly a function of government. A source of advice that is independent of government is not a prerequisite. Civil servants in the MoJ already offer Ministers balanced, objective, impartial advice, and they can draw on expert advice on administrative justice reform.
The Government will ensure that they exercise effective oversight of the administrative justice system in a way that best serves its users. They will develop, maintain and enhance a UK perspective of the system as well as enhancing their links with stakeholders. The Government will expand the channels by which best practice can be shared and collaborative working developed across the administrative justice system.
I have been asked to think again but I say to the House that we have had ample time to think about this. This House has already made one decision on this body. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Newton may be either helpful or ingenious, whichever way one likes to approach them. However, at this stage of a Bill, when the other place has had ample time and ample consideration of these matters, the Government are entitled to say to this advisory House that we have listened to this advice but that we want to abolish this body.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I started off slightly plaintive and have ended up more than slightly depressed. I can assure the Minister that I do not wish to become personal non-chums with him. Actually, I rather sympathise with him having to trot out all this stuff for the third or fourth time. He said he thought that the arguments were as sound now as they were at the beginning. From my point of view, they are as weak now as they were at the beginning.
I will make very few points as there is no point in going over all the ground again. I am hugely grateful to those who have spoken in my support. Rather unusually for this kind of debate, they have not only supported me and repeated some of the things that I have said, but all of them have added something significant to the arguments in the debate. I will not pick noble Lords out except for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, because the Minister said that the judiciary rules out any idea of this being combined in some way—the noble Lord used the word “merging”—with the work of the Civil Justice Council. At least in historical terms, you cannot get much more senior than the noble and learned Lord Woolf. I also have from three separate sources a report that the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, who is also pretty senior, said at the AJTC conference last week that he could easily envisage an administrative justice committee of the Civil Justice Council and he seemed to think that it would be a good thing if the set-up were right. I see the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chief Justice nodding. I do not think that it is right to say that members of the senior judiciary have set their faces against this. It seems to me that that is not the case. I believe that efficiency, economy and effectiveness have been covered with the figures that I gave and that have been given by others.
I must make the point that remarks about Ministers taking responsibility for decisions are completely irrelevant. This is not a decision-making body. This is an advisory body. The Minister said that the department would need to assemble some kind of stakeholder group. I do not recall his exact words. He put the emphasis on practitioners. That means reinventing the AJTC, in one way or another, when it already broadly carries out this function and more, because it links with users, not just stakeholders, judges and advocates. This ties in with the fact, as I learnt on Thursday last, that the tribunal service, which in my time asked the AJTC to run two of its user groups because it was thought that we did it better, has now scrapped all its user groups on the grounds that it cannot afford them. Where does that leave this argument?
There is very little else that I want to say. I do not think that the case stands up. I do not think that the Minister’s arguments stand up. I think that we need a body like this. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord McNally
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 50.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
My Lords, I should point out that there is a misprint in Amendment 50A, and that the words, “and insert ‘disagree’”, should appear at the end.
Amendment 50A (to the Motion on Amendment 50)
Lord Newton of Braintree
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 50, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I do not intend to move Amendment 51A. I thought that it was worth a try, given the narrowness of the defeat on the first vote. However, I know when I am beat, and I am not going to grumble any further. I will go quietly—at least for this evening.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 53 but do propose Amendments 53C, 53D and 53E in lieu.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
As an amendment to the Motion, leave out “but do propose Amendments 53C, 53D and 53E in lieu”.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I was, of course, absolutely delighted, as were so many others—in fact everybody, as far as I know—to see that the office of the chief coroner will continue. I know that this means an enormous amount to those people who have been bereaved, who have had bad experiences, and who have campaigned tirelessly in spite of their overwhelming grief to try to ensure that others do not suffer through our coronial system the hurt and sense of injustice that they at times have suffered. It was that motivation that lay behind the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which was passed in this House with support from all sides.
In agreeing to the office of the chief coroner, I would like formally to thank the Government and the Ministers, and while it might seem invidious to single out any two, I would particularly like to record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and also to Jonathan Djanogly, who is the Minister. They have both made themselves available to meet me and others at all times, and at times of inconvenience to them but when I was in London or when others could meet them. They have always been courteous, they have always listened, and they have always taken on board points that were made to them.
I would also like sincerely to thank all Members of the House who have supported the move to have a chief coroner, who have voted with their consciences in the past, who have asked questions, and who have given so much support to the drive to establish this office. I also thank, of course, the bereavement organisations such as INQUEST, the Royal British Legion, Cry and many others, the list of which is almost too long to mention. All have stood shoulder to shoulder in a campaign where at last they can see that, after more than 100 years, our coronial system will be modernised.
The chief coroner will establish independent leadership, set standards and ensure that all coroners, deputies and officers are trained. I currently have the privilege of being involved in this year’s round of training for those groups of people, and I look forward to the days when we all know, and indeed the chief coroner has made sure, that all coroners, all deputies and all officers have participated in training, which is currently voluntary but needs to be made compulsory to drive up standards.
All Members of this House will have received the letter that was circulated to us, and I would ask the Minister, when responding to me, to provide a reassurance that the appointment will now proceed without delay, and that there will not be a hiatus before these long-overdue reforms can start.
It is with sadness that I note, in the letter, the intention to exclude the appeals system from the process. If I might remind the House, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 in Section 182 states that the appeals process, which is Section 40, is one of the provisions of the Act that comes into force only,
“on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint”.
That means that, in fact, the appeals system could sit on the statute without any pressure for it to be implemented until such time as the chief coroner and the Secretary of State agree that the appeals system should start. That means it could sit there for five, 10 or 15 years. I know that the Secretary of State cannot decide without the agreement of Parliament to cancel the appeals system, which is why we have this amendment before us which aims to do that, but it could just sit there.
In the letter that we have all received, cost was cited. However, I remind the House that those costings have not had an enormous modern review because they were made by the previous Government in their impact assessment in December 2008, in which they estimated that the costs of the appeal system would be £2.2 million of the running costs. However, as the Minister, Mr Djanogly, informed the other place, no further analysis has been conducted by the Ministry of Justice.
The suggestion has been made that the appeals system could be based around a tribunal—even a level 1 tribunal—which would be far less costly than the current process of judicial review. I remind the House that judicial review is a difficult and traumatic process, particularly for bereaved people to go through. It also incurs substantial costs to them. In 2009 alone, there were 12 substantial hearings and a further six renewal hearings, so the number of people who feel that they have to go to that extent is not insignificant. The appeals system as laid out in the Act would allow for appeals about coroners but not over an enormously broad-ranging aspect. It would be about the processes and decisions—particularly about whether to hold, suspend or restart an inquest, or whether a post-mortem should be conducted in the case. That system did not open the door to wide-ranging litigation but very much made sure that the system functioned properly.
I suggest that any future decision on the issue should be taken on the basis of rigorous, sound costings and careful consideration by the chief coroner himself. It would seem that leaving Section 40 out of the Coroners and Justice Act does not allow this review to happen, as it should. If this goes through, the chief coroner will be forced to address his concerns over appeals in his annual report, which will go to the Lord Chancellor. If it is recommended that there should be an appeals system, there would need to be a decision that further legislation would have to be brought through Parliament. I seek an assurance now from the Minister that the chief coroner will be required to report on both the complaints system and the views of the chief coroner on the appeals system, as far as it goes.
I remind the House that, time after time, there has been a call for an appeals system. Disaster Action, whose members have been involved in all the major disasters from Aberfan in 1966 to the Zeebrugge ferry disaster in 1987, the London bombings in 2005 and the Mumbai attacks in 2008, has said:
“It is crucial that”,
the appeals system,
“be re-instated as part of the Chief Coroner's functions. Judicial review is”,
an expensive,
“and unsatisfactory method of dealing with unreasonable decisions by coroners”.
I also remind your Lordships that the “Marchioness” disaster occurred only a stone’s throw from this House. In 1994, a Court of Appeal decision upheld the complaints by Eileen Dallaglio and Margaret Lockwood-Croft against Dr Paul Knapman, the Westminster coroner who had conducted the basic inquest. The tragedy occurred in 1989. That was five years of appeal before those bereaved relatives had any justice. I also remind the House that the Dallaglios are really a very high-achieving family. Their daughter died on the “Marchioness”, but of course their son became an international cap in rugby and has become a role model for many youngsters in the UK. The family’s perseverance is to be admired.
In its second report, the public inquiry criticised the coroner for removing the hands of victims for identification purposes and stated that this should never have happened. I will not list all the other examples. They come from the report on Hillsborough, which was debated recently in the other place, and many other reports into the conduct of inquests.
My fear in not having appeals available is that expensive judicial reviews or the difficulty of persuading the Attorney-General to exercise his or her power of fiat is not the way to signal that we recognise when bereaved people are not being treated with the respect that they deserve. I am disappointed that the Ministry of Justice has not analysed the cost of judicial review applications against coroners and their decisions. Having a High Court judge as a chief coroner, who will be welcomed universally—of that I am sure—would mean that some legal issues that currently are resolved in the administrative court could be resolved by the post-holder himself or herself in a more cost-efficient way for families and for the public purse. That direct link with the coronial system may also be a much more powerful lever than has been exercised up until now on those coroners whose way of making decisions should be reflected on by them and revised.
As best practice becomes the norm and a chief coroner is able to drive up standards and improve the way that the system works, I and many others predict that there will be a reduction in the number of disputes; complaints will be properly handled; families will be able to be represented; and, as standards rise, the need for people to proceed right through to appeal against a decision will drop, not rise. Far from creating a litigious culture and an endless right of appeal after inquests, the carefully crafted framework of the Act that we have at the moment has the potential to reduce the need for so many bereaved people to engage in expensive litigation.
I hope that no one will feel that my plea for an appeals system in any way detracts from the importance of the post of chief coroner. I will listen with great interest to the response of the Minister for the assurances that I have sought before I decide how to act tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in this matter. I have only two points of divergence from what she has said, and they will be of a rather different character. I emphasise the noble Baroness’s praise for the efforts of Ministers to take up and address the fears that a number of us have expressed.
My first point of divergence from the noble Baroness is simply that she cannot praise herself, but I hope I may do so for her. She, and to some extent I, were participants in some of those earlier explanatory meetings after the initial flurry on this matter, when I found myself unable to support the Government, which is not my usual stance, because of the concerns that have been expressed. I know that Ministers have gone to an exceptional level of trouble, culminating in decisions this week to give us, in effect, the substance of what we want. It is perhaps difficult to score but as a percentage of the overall objective it is in the high 90s. I shall come back to that in a moment. It is an object lesson in how to do it.
To unpack the concerns that I and others expressed at the time, the coronial system, which had grown up locally and was delivered differently in different areas, had been perceptibly unresponsive to the needs of its users and often quite harsh to people who felt themselves vulnerable. In particular, it was uneven in its delivery. Something had to be done and I think the Government have now done it. I very much hope that the chief coroner, who has now been reinstated as the lead and the champion in this matter, will be able to take the agenda forward.
My other point of divergence from the noble Baroness is over the appeal system. It is of course right that we should raise that. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, said a little more about the managerial functions, which report to him in the Ministry of Justice; the judicial functions, which report to the chief coroner; and the overarching function of seeing that the system works satisfactorily and in accordance with the charter for bereaved people and is meeting their needs. He needs to set that out for us again, despite the helpful letter that he has circulated.
The area where I am mildly in dissent with the noble Baroness is that of appeals. Frankly, this is partly because when one has extracted nearly all the juice from the orange, it may or may not be prudent to put it to the final point. However, there is also a point of substance here, which I hope noble Lords will consider. One of the concerns that Ministers had was that in having a chief coroner they would be seen to be mixing up the administrative side with the judicial side. Although an inquest is a judicial process, it is not the normal kind of judicial process. I speak as a non-lawyer. It is not adversarial; there are no parties to it, although there are interested parties, including the bereaved families; and there is no judgment in favour of one side or the other. There are findings of fact, which may be right or wrong. Therefore, it is not necessarily self-evident that we need to cap this process of finding facts with a second tier of appeals, even if there are—as I am sure there are—some bereaved families whose concern, or duty to their loved ones as they see it, would lead them into further rounds of appeals until the process was exhausted.
I am not particularly keen on an appeal process, but one of the reasons why people wanted it was because the coronial system, as it had been delivered, probably deserved one because many inquests were flawed or not well conducted. There may be an argument that in those prelapsarian days, when we had no training and there was no overall supervision—which the chief coroner will now give—there was an uneven, patchy and unfair service. I hope that will be remedied without going through the second stage of an appeal process. If that was the major element of cost, and if it was a concern—as I am sure it was to Ministers—and it can be eliminated, whatever the exact figure, I think that would be sensible.
However, we have essentially secured the main prize: the survival of the position of the chief coroner. I remember the saying of the Roman poet: “You may kick out nature with a pitchfork, but somehow she will always come back”. This miraculously seems to have happened at the last moment with the chief coroner. I welcome that. The families of the bereaved will welcome it too, and we should not look the gift horse of government Ministers in the mouth. We should welcome what they are offering and accept it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for enabling Parliament to get back to the place where it should have been, and was, after the Coroners Act. She has done a tremendous job. It has also brought forth something that she mentioned briefly in her speech—she is now involved in the training of coroners. Already there is tremendous progress. I am also hugely grateful for all the work that my noble friend Lord McNally has put into this matter, because I am sure it is not easy to turn the ship of government around when it is sailing so fast in one direction. I can imagine the sort of effort that he had to put in.
The Royal British Legion and Inquest deserve particular gratitude, as do all the other organisations that signed the letter to the Times. A lot of them are run and supported by bereaved families, and it is not easy to go out and campaign when in the midst of grief. Some of those parents and siblings came to give evidence to parliamentarians about what had happened to them at inquests. I should like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to those people for giving us examples of why not only the training but the attitude of coroners to issues such as timeliness are extremely important.
I have one question for the Minister. The charter on the table is not now just for bereaved people but for anyone who comes before the coronial system. Some of us, including me, certainly felt that it should be a charter for bereaved people. It is not yet finalised and I hope that the chief coroner, who will be in a wonderful position to cast his or her eye over the draft charter, will have an opportunity to comment on it and perhaps improve it in the light of the things that he or she hears when talking to coroners.
Finally, I wish to comment from a purely personal point of view on the issue of appeals. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, made some very good points about the fact that the issue could lie on the table and be implemented later, if necessary, but my heart lies with the government position, and it is not really a question of cost. In many cases, there will never be real satisfaction for the bereaved because, even though the process may have been thorough, timely and open, that is just the nature of bereavement; there is no satisfaction. If the chief coroner manages with all his other coroners to get the process right, there should be no need for appeals. There will obviously be an interim period that will not be entirely satisfactory, but the package on the table is all that we could have hoped for and is one for which I am particularly grateful.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am going quietly on Amendment 54, but not on Amendment 53. I will go more loudly, but briefly, on this. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her success. I thank the Government for giving her that success, even though she is showing some signs of looking the gift horse in the mouth. I have one very small point that is not about appeals, but about suicides. I declare an interest as the chair of a mental health trust.
One of the problems with the coronial system has been the great inconsistency between the verdicts of coroners, some of whom, it is alleged—I am not an expert on this but I have been to a number of meetings with people who have studied it very carefully—prefer to find suicides as accidental deaths to spare the families. I cannot vouch for that, but that is what is reported by reputable researchers. The Department of Health is devising a suicide prevention strategy. I do not see how such a strategy can be devised, let alone measured, unless there is consistency in coronial verdicts around the country. One thing that is required from a chief coroner’s office is the need to ensure consistency. I should be grateful for an assurance that part of the role envisaged will be to seek to bring about greater consistency in the practice of coronial courts around the country. I believe that I see the noble Baroness nodding her head at that proposition.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, with reluctance I want to speak against the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Before I do so, I reiterate all that my noble friend Lady Miller and others have said in this mini-debate about the worth of the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and indeed about how exemplary the combination of her efforts and those of others in this House as well as in outside bodies has been in bringing about the change in government policy that we have heard about today. That really is democracy in action.
However, there is one practical issue here that may not be sufficiently understood. I speak as one who at the start of his legal career was a coroner’s officer and indeed, on occasion, sat as a deputy coroner. The change we are making in creating the chief coroner post is, I believe, fundamental, and I think that it will have more ramifications than many realise. There is positive merit in waiting to see how it pans out over the next few years. Surely we do not want to rush into the creation of a new appeals mechanism without having the benefit of the experience of that changed situation. For that reason, if no other, I think that the position to which we have come—that is, acceptance of the chief coroner but at this stage not approval of a brand new appeals mechanism, especially in view of the fact that coroners’ juries find as to fact—may be the right one for the time being.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, when I last spoke in this Chamber it was on the occasion of the debate in advance of Remembrance Sunday introduced by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. In that debate, I expressed my grave dismay at the then prospect of the duties of the chief coroner being distributed between departments and various officials.
I spoke, and speak now, from a very precise position. I am honoured to be the president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Its members know above all others what it is like to suffer the loss of loved ones and to go through military inquests. Over the years, they told me in no uncertain terms how difficult it was if a coroner was inexperienced in dealing with inquests, the nature of the war scene and the military ethos. To put it bluntly, the Ministry of Defence could pull the wool over the eyes of coroners not experienced in wartime matters. As time went on and certain coroners became expert, life became very much easier. My concern when the last Bill, now an Act, went through was that there should be coroners who had experience and had been properly trained to deal with this particular aspect of the coroner’s duties. Therefore, one can imagine my dismay when this was apparently thrown out of the window and it was decided not to take it further.
I am therefore very pleased indeed that wiser counsels have prevailed, and I know that many have been involved in the persuasion. I am grateful to the Government for largely, if not entirely, rescuing the whole coronial system. I think it would be churlish not to offer my sincere thanks for this particular mercy. Since I feel I am getting a bit aged to be a rebel, I am also relieved that I have been spared that tonight.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I, too, put on record my appreciation for the Government’s decision, having been involved at various times in this subject. As I recall, a chief coroner has been identified, but I cannot remember whether he has actually been appointed; he may or may not still be around. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister made very clear, having decided to go ahead with the chief coroner, that the appointment will be filled expeditiously, as will those of the medical officers and others who will assist him. To pass the Bill into law to include a chief coroner, without an assurance that those posts will be filled promptly, would be something of a pyrrhic victory.
Viscount Slim
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister and the Government. I have worked rather hard to see that we have a chief coroner. One little area that is not often remembered is that when it comes to the military side, the widows, the mothers and the dead servicemen actually still belong to the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for them. These people should not be left out of the thoughts of this new chief coroner—which I am so pleased about. I hope that on his introduction to this very important post, he goes across to meet and talk to the Ministry of Defence, and perhaps visits a battle zone—this would be rather sensible. He would then get the feel and the ethos, as the noble Baroness has just said, of military thinking on these occasions.
I end by saying one further thing which I have said on this subject in your Lordships’ House before. At the moment, thank God, the casualty and death rate for war is fairly steady and fairly low. However, some things can go wrong very quickly in an operational area, and somewhere the coroner’s system has to be geared up for a higher casualty rate coming in across its bows. At present, we are waiting one to two years for conclusion. If the rate was to increase and the coroners did not have a plan for this, then I can see bereaved families, widows and mothers waiting up to four years before conclusion. For the sake of the chief coroner, I hope that he will get to know the military and will look ahead for, God forbid, worse rates of death.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I hope that I will have the tolerance of the House if I briefly ask the Minister a question about a somewhat tangential issue. The Lord Chancellor is quoted on page 8 of today's Times as saying:
“Everyone is agreed that the priority is raising the standards of coroners’ inquiries”.
I take it that he was referring to coroners’ inquiries of all sorts.
Following the Government’s extremely welcome acceptance of the need to appoint a chief coroner, will the Minister assure us that they will also accept the will of Parliament as expressed in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that an office of coroner for treasure should be established? Will he acknowledge that the appointment of a national coroner for treasure would lead to the elimination of lengthy delays, excessive bureaucracy and errors, as well as to savings in overall public expenditure as the activities of coroners in 45 local authority areas would be replaced by the streamlined, specialised work of a single national coroner, probably supported by a single staff member? If the noble Lord is unable to give that assurance, will he undertake to reconsider the matter urgently, and to correct the failure by the Ministry of Justice to include reference to the treasure process in the draft charter for the coroner service?
Lord Bach
My Lords, it does not seem like a year since this House decisively rejected the Government’s firm plan to abolish the position of chief coroner by a majority of 112. It was a vote in all parts of the Chamber of which the House could be proud then and can be even prouder today. Of course I join in congratulating the Government. However, in this instance the congratulations must be slightly modified. The Government have given in at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. They deserve credit, but as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will recognise from his position at the Ministry of Justice, there is an analogy with someone in the dock who does not deserve the credit that someone who makes an early admission of guilt deserves. This is the equivalent of a change of plea at the moment when the jury is being sworn in. It is worthy of credit, and the judge will pass a lesser sentence, but he will not show as much leniency as if the Government had given way some time earlier. It is better late than never—but it is pretty late.
Of course, this is all immensely to the credit of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She deserves huge congratulations on her success today. She will be the first to say that it is not just her success, but that of others as well. However, she deserves particular praise for her brave refusal to back down over this long period. So does the Royal British Legion—I declare my membership of a local branch—and other organisations that the noble Baroness mentioned such as INQUEST and Liberty, and those on all sides of the House and elsewhere who stayed firm and argued the case for the chief coroner.
Noble Lords should make no mistake—sometimes these things ought to be said—that the Government over the past 12 months used every means and blandishment, and a few extra, to persuade, if I may put it gently, those who dared stand out of the error of their ways. Individual meetings with the Lord Chancellor were not the worst of it. Seductive compromises were offered one day and a hard line taken the next. There were meetings and letters galore. I hate even to contemplate the pressure that the brave Conservative Member Andrew Percy, who dared to challenge the Government in another place, must have come under at a certain stage. I do not want to sound churlish—I hope that that is not my style—but I do not think the congratulations are quite as deserved in this case as perhaps they were earlier this afternoon.
I have no doubt that our Justice Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, played an important role in this. I also am in no doubt that the Sun, which I know many noble Lords read regularly, also played a pretty important role at the last moment. For anyone who has forgotten what they read in the Sun yesterday: they will have seen a story and then an editorial that condemned the Government in no uncertain terms for the stance that they were then taking. No. 10 reacted extraordinarily quickly. The Prime Minister’s spokesman spoke early yesterday afternoon and the change was announced yesterday evening—perhaps coincidence; probably not.
Whatever the result, the Government have done the right thing. They have accepted the chief coroner. That was argued for on all sides of this House during the passing of the Act, which was only two years ago. It is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the Government on what they have done, but I ask the Minister who will answer this debate why Section 40 on appeals is being removed. If I remember rightly, many noble Lords took part in those debates, so why is it being removed? Among the strong and powerful arguments in report after report in the past decade, and eventually during the debate on the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 for the setting up of this post of chief coroner, the possibility of appeal on a number of issues, which is not huge, was set out in Section 40(2), as it was well nigh impossible to appeal under the present system. The only remedy, as we have heard, is judicial review, which is time consuming. As the Public Law Project argued:
“The cost of bringing a judicial review claim is considerable: in the region of £10,000 to £20,000 for a straightforward case, higher for a more complex matter. If a claimant is unsuccessful, they are likely to be liable for the defendant’s costs as well as their own. They are therefore looking at a legal bill of upwards of £30,000 if they lose, and they must be prepared for this eventuality, bearing in mind the unpredictability of judicial review proceedings and costs orders”.
We believe that it would be preferable for the chief coroner to have the power that Parliament gave him or her during the passage of that Bill, which was agreed on an all-party basis. That sensible step which we all agreed should not be implemented straight away—that is perhaps the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—and that there should be a delay between the time the Bill was enacted and this section was implemented. There was no intention from any party that the appeals process would begin at once. If it remained in the Act it would be there if some time in the future a Lord Chancellor felt able to bring it in under the guidance of the chief coroner at the time. To abolish Section 40, which is what the Government propose, is the wrong thing to do.
If the noble Baroness were to put the matter to a vote—I can understand if she does not wish to do so—we on this side would support her. We regret that Section 40 is being taken out. However, I do not want to end on a depressing note. We are grateful to the Government for the action that they have taken.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that non-churlish response. He must have been thinking of some earlier Administration when he talked about the main drive of government policy being an attempt to please the Sun.
This has been a very useful debate and I hope that I can give some reassurances. I cannot give reassurances on the question of appeals. As my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor said in his letter, to extend,
“the appeals system was by far the most expensive element of the original Chief Coroner role proposal”.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, as with most of the proposals, including that in the Division we had today, is rather cavalier about costs. I am afraid that the Government cannot be. I also think that enough doubts about the idea of appeals were expressed in the responses to make it prudent not to proceed with that at the moment. We have all been in politics long enough to know that simply to leave the appeals system hanging there would almost certainly invite the next campaign on this issue to commence straight away.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and I am indebted to all those who have contributed to it. I feel quite humble in responding because many noble Lords have far greater experience than me in certain specific areas. The Minister has gone a very long way and we have the essence of what we need. I recognise that there is disagreement over the appeals system, but there was no disagreement over the chief coroner, and that is what we have. So that noble Lords do not remain in suspense, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to divide the House, but I would like to make one or two concluding remarks.
The appeals system that would have been put in place would have been precisely on the finding of fact to ascertain that the process to find facts had been correct so that the correct verdict was given. You cannot have a consistent verdict if you do not have consistent facts. Indeed, for families who know all the facts, that is where they achieve closure. Some people may have ongoing difficulties and feel bitterness over what has happened, but in the coronial system if they know that they have been heard and that all the facts have been looked at properly, that marks the start they need in order to achieve closure of their grief.
I am delighted at the reassurance given that we will appoint a chief coroner with all due speed, and I am glad that the Government will heed the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Slim that there should be a comprehensive induction programme for whoever takes the post. I also ask the Government to proceed as requested with the appointment of the relevant medical officers, because the victims of medical accidents need to know that the facts will be properly interpreted and represented to the coroner, particularly as coroners are not medically trained and are therefore dependent on the medical advice they receive.
It is to be hoped that the new charter will represent a way forward. The annual report will be read by many of us with great interest to see whether our expectations have been met. In an ideal world, in a few years’ time the annual reports will say that we have a good complaints process, that there is good resolution of complaints and that an appeals system as originally envisaged is no longer needed. I sincerely hope that there will be no need to come back to Parliament to try to reinstate Section 40, but that question remains hanging in the air tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I am still going quietly, I shall say at the outset, but not, I will say to my noble friend Lady Fookes, on the basis that I am too old to be a rebel.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.
Lord McNally
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 56.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this amendment concerns a technical matter which has to go on to the record. It should have been moved in an earlier grouping. It refers to Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. I made my maiden speech in this House on the privatisation of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. On Report in March, your Lordships’ House passed government amendments that inserted the Advisory Council on Public Records, the Keeper of Public Records and the Public Record Office into Schedule 5 to the Bill. The intention was and is simply to put the administrative entity of the National Archives and one of its advisory bodies on a statutory footing, thereby strengthening its ability to perform an important cultural function. This further amendment, to insert Her Majesty’s Stationery Office into the same schedule, serves a similar purpose and therefore represents a minor technical amendment rather than a substantive policy change. It is supported by the chief executive of the National Archives, who is also Keeper of Public Records, and has been agreed with Buckingham Palace.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 57 to 62.
Charities Bill [HL]
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
“(4) This section is subject to section 11 (which makes special provision for Chapter 2 of this Part onwards).”
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I hope to be able to keep my contribution relatively short. I will give a brief explanation of the drafting amendment that we have put down. I will also mention the review of the Charities Act 2006, which will include consideration of the substantive issue that lies behind this amendment.
The amendment responds to the point that was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. As the law stands, there are two subtly different definitions of charitable purpose that are used in different contexts. The definition of charitable purpose in Clause 2 is a definition which applies generally; that is, in legislation generally and in documents such as trust deeds, and in England and Wales as well as, for certain purposes, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The definition of charitable purpose in Clause 11 has a much more limited application. It applies only in England and Wales and only to provisions derived from the Charities Act 1993.
The initial suggestion of my noble friend Lord Phillips was that the two definitions should be combined into one. This was not an option, however, as the rules for consolidation Bills constrain the drafter from making any changes that would alter the meaning of the current law, so both definitions of charitable purpose had to be consolidated into the Charities Bill.
The remaining concern of my noble friend Lord Phillips was that a reader of the legislation could miss the fact that there are two subtly different definitions of charitable purpose that apply in different contexts. He suggested certain drafting amendments to address this point. The amendment we have put down deals with the issue more simply by placing a flag at the end of Clause 2 to alert the reader to the existence of the separate definition of charitable purpose in Clause 11. As I said during Committee stage, we recognise that there is a more fundamental point that ought to be considered; namely, whether it is possible to have one definition of charitable purpose rather than the two that exist in the current law. Although we could not consider such a change in this Bill, I do undertake for it to be included in the review of the Charities Act 2006.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has been appointed to undertake the review of the Charities Act 2006. He has recently chaired the red tape task force, the sensible and practical recommendations of which have been widely welcomed by the charity sector. Also, as an opposition Front-Bench spokesperson during the previous Administration, he led on the Companies Act 2006 and the Charities Act 2006. His significant experience makes him ideally suited to lead this review and I am sure that your Lordships will join me in welcoming his appointment.
The aims of the review will be twofold: to report on the operation and effectiveness of the provisions of the Charities Act 2006; and to consider whether further changes could be made to improve the legal and regulatory framework for charities. The terms of reference are broadly drawn to reflect these aims. I have placed a copy of the terms of reference in the House Library and they are available on the Cabinet Office website. The review is expected to report before Summer Recess in 2012 and a copy of the report will be laid in Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson has confirmed that he will consider the concern of my noble friend Lord Phillips about the two definitions of charitable purpose as part of his review. In the mean time, although this amendment will not resolve the underlying problem, it will ensure that readers of the legislation are aware that there are two definitions of charitable purpose. As such it is helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said in respect of the amendment in her name. I can only concur with and applaud it, because, in my view, the Bill as drafted, given the limitations of consolidation statute, was none the less a big elephant trap for any non-charity lawyer who waded into the same, not realising that the definition in Clause 2 was subtly but significantly different from the definition in Clause 11 of the same phrase. It may seem odd for a charity lawyer to have, as a near-passion, the wish to try and keep charity law as simple, direct and plain as possible; but that has always been my position. It was during the course of the Charities Bill in 2006, when I led for these Benches, and remains an abiding passion in an age that seems to get more and more complicated and trammelled by regulation and so on. Therefore, I am glad at least that we have got this in the Bill. I perfectly understand the limitations of these consolidation statutes and therefore cannot complain that something more has not been done. I am grateful that it will be on the agenda of my noble friend Lord Hodgson; whom I congratulate, if that is the right word, on being appointed to undertake this review. I am glad that I was the author of this review clause in the 2006 Act. The noble Lord can blame me.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sure. We will all assist him as best we can because I know that he, too, wants to try to make charity law as accessible as possible to the volunteers who are the heart and soul of the charity sector. We will have a lot of excitement when we come back to this House with a new Bill that will, I hope, do a bit of deck clearing. With that, I silence myself.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but I am very happy to confirm what my noble friend has said from the Front Bench. The terms of reference that I have been given are widely drawn. While obviously a lot of our time will be spent on the big issues that affect the sector, we shall want to make sure we do as much tidying up as we can of some of the more specific and technical points, of which this is one.
Already some of the professional bodies such as the Charity Law Association are in touch about some of the things they would like cleared up. I am sure there will be no shortage of views and things for us to do. I very much hope that we get a lot of input, not just from the usual suspects in the sector, but also views from the general public because it is important they should have some say in how their charity sector is structured in the future. Certainly we will make sure—I would be much too frightened not to—that my noble friend’s point is addressed some time between now and next July.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this may be one of the shorter Reports in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to the Minister for the considerable effort I know she has taken to accommodate concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I note he says that charity law should be as simple, direct and as plain as possible. The “as possible” part is the catch-all phrase there because charity law is never simple, direct or plain. Therefore, when welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, to his post in the review of legislation, I do not envy him the position at all. He has been set quite a challenge.
It shows this House at its best that concerns were raised—when we spoke in Committee, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I had to go back to read what had been said at Second Reading to get the gist, because the issue was so technical—and I hope the Minister and her officials have managed to accommodate them. As I say, it is the House at its best when an issue is raised and Ministers take it away and come back with a solution, which satisfies all. I am also happy to accept the Minister’s amendment.